OrthodoxChristianity.net
December 18, 2014, 09:38:35 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Gay Marriage...I don't care.  (Read 3017 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 759



« on: May 20, 2014, 03:50:08 PM »

Seriously, I am sick of hearing about this BS.  They just made gay marriage legal in my state.  Great!  I could care less!!

Weather or not they get married does not matter to me, it doesn't change my opinion and doesn't change Church teaching.  Homosexuals are not the new civil rights leaders of our day and they are not heros.  Homosexuals not getting married and segregation are not on par, IMO.  I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.  But nobody says a word lest we offend a very small minority in this country.

Anyway, I hope the Supreme Court just rules it legal in all states so the news can obsess on something else for a while.  And another thing...Oh I got to go, CNN just broke in with major breaking news about Led Zepplin...(something any Led Zepplin fan heard about years ago)
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
Alpo
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jerkodox
Posts: 7,042



« Reply #1 on: May 20, 2014, 03:55:23 PM »

Not all homosexuals are for gay marriage. Otherwise I agree. It doesn't change the Church's teaching and I don't really care whether it happens here or not.
« Last Edit: May 20, 2014, 03:55:34 PM by Alpo » Logged

scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,271



« Reply #2 on: May 20, 2014, 08:54:52 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,628



« Reply #3 on: May 20, 2014, 09:06:07 PM »

My view exactly.

Quote
The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

I fear this as well.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from reporting
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Truest Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,865


Proverbs 31:13


« Reply #4 on: May 20, 2014, 09:20:12 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.
Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,628



« Reply #5 on: May 20, 2014, 09:22:13 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #6 on: May 20, 2014, 09:27:32 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #7 on: May 20, 2014, 09:32:43 PM »

Seriously, I am sick of hearing about this BS.  They just made gay marriage legal in my state.  Great!  I could care less!!

Weather or not they get married does not matter to me, it doesn't change my opinion and doesn't change Church teaching.  Homosexuals are not the new civil rights leaders of our day and they are not heros.  Homosexuals not getting married and segregation are not on par, IMO.  I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.  But nobody says a word lest we offend a very small minority in this country.

Anyway, I hope the Supreme Court just rules it legal in all states so the news can obsess on something else for a while.  And another thing...Oh I got to go, CNN just broke in with major breaking news about Led Zepplin...(something any Led Zepplin fan heard about years ago)
If we were hermits, maybe it wouldn't matter. Maybe.

Take for instance now what is going on in CA: the "infertility" of homosexual "unions" has to be covered by medical insurance.  Otherwise it "wouldn't be equal protection."  If you think that won't affect your rate, or have other ripples rumbling through the rest of society, well....
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,271



« Reply #8 on: May 20, 2014, 10:26:15 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.



Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

Bob Jones University lost its tax exempt status as a religious institution because of its ban on inter-racial dating so there is precedent, not unlike how the ACA compels religiously affiliated institutions to violate their own conscience when it comes to providing for contraception and abortion services for employees.
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #9 on: May 20, 2014, 10:29:44 PM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from reporting
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Truest Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,865


Proverbs 31:13


« Reply #10 on: May 20, 2014, 10:37:46 PM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #11 on: May 20, 2014, 11:30:33 PM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages.  They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Alveus Lacuna
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Posts: 6,964



« Reply #12 on: May 20, 2014, 11:42:02 PM »

Great!  I could care less!!

You care so little that you've started an internet thread about it?

BTW...if you could care less, it means that you do care. If you couldn't care less, then that would make sense.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #13 on: May 20, 2014, 11:45:05 PM »

The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable. 

It sounds like you are speaking of some conspiratorial "gay agenda" here. "They" are not getting together underground and planning ways to change church doctrine. Your indifference is very welcome to them, I suspect, as it is better than your overt opposition. I suspect that "live and let live" is exactly what most gays are looking for in regards to gay marriage.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #14 on: May 20, 2014, 11:46:18 PM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Perhaps you would prefer, say, an Islamic theocracy?
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #15 on: May 20, 2014, 11:56:53 PM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
Logged
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #16 on: May 21, 2014, 12:04:02 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
The next Sodom and Gomorrah event might just be on account of all the cold hearted and self righteous cynics... based on my reading of Jesus, at least.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Rambam
High Elder
******
Online Online

Faith: Check
Jurisdiction: I'm color blind
Posts: 604


"If you like your Ebola, you can keep your Ebola."


« Reply #17 on: May 21, 2014, 12:10:50 AM »

Holy cow! Be careful what you say, lest you find yourself excommunicated for 'hate speech.'



I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #18 on: May 21, 2014, 12:13:00 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
The next Sodom and Gomorrah event might just be on account of all the cold hearted and self righteous cynics... based on my reading of Jesus, at least.
He may add that to the faggies and lesbians also.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #19 on: May 21, 2014, 12:21:35 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
The next Sodom and Gomorrah event might just be on account of all the cold hearted and self righteous cynics... based on my reading of Jesus, at least.
Those self righteous cynics...you mean the ones who call opposition to the redefinition of marriage "homophobia"?
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #20 on: May 21, 2014, 12:22:33 AM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Perhaps you would prefer, say, an Islamic theocracy?
It would last longer...and be able to function as a society.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #21 on: May 21, 2014, 12:23:40 AM »

The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable. 

It sounds like you are speaking of some conspiratorial "gay agenda" here. "They" are not getting together underground and planning ways to change church doctrine. Your indifference is very welcome to them, I suspect, as it is better than your overt opposition. I suspect that "live and let live" is exactly what most gays are looking for in regards to gay marriage.
sort of like moderate Muslims among the Islamists.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #22 on: May 21, 2014, 12:25:34 AM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Perhaps you would prefer, say, an Islamic theocracy?

Sad day when we are forced to choose between secularism and Islam. No, what I "would prefer" is the Church to assume its just role beside the State, governing the souls that (rightly perceived) really are society. It is the just role of the State to be guardian, certainly; but only guarding the sheep is fatal neglect. It is the role of the Church to lead and heal us, and that too is government, which deserves and requires an authority equal to the State's. The West is suffering, schizophrenic and starving, because it has for so long rejected this truth.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #23 on: May 21, 2014, 12:26:22 AM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages. They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.
doesn't matter who gathers the poisonous fruit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
(did you by chance ever see "Bonfire of the Vanities"?
but your self serving hypocrisy is noted.

I don't have a sports team, do not watch sports, couldn't care less if blacks or anyone else goes to games-so how was my post serving me?  No one seems to be upset about the fact he was cheating on his wife-but since he was doing that out in the open, that would be fruit just lying around on the ground.  Rotting.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 12:31:15 AM by ialmisry » Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
stavros_388
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: +
Posts: 1,270



« Reply #24 on: May 21, 2014, 12:34:32 AM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Perhaps you would prefer, say, an Islamic theocracy?
It would last longer...and be able to function as a society.

Please feel free to join a functional theocratic society. Sudan? Nigeria, perhaps? I prefer separation of religion and state, myself.
Logged

"The kingdom of heaven is virtuous life, just as the torment of hell is passionate habits." - St. Gregory of Sinai

"Our idea of God tells us more about ourselves than about Him." - Thomas Merton
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #25 on: May 21, 2014, 12:36:13 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.

You might want to revisit your understanding of that event:

Quote from: Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

πλὴν τοῦτο τὸ ἀνόμημα Σοδομων τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου ὑπερηφανία ἐν πλησμονῇ ἄρτων καὶ ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ οἴνου ἐσπατάλων αὐτὴ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες αὐτῆς τοῦτο ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῇ καὶ ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῆς καὶ χεῖρα πτωχοῦ καὶ πένητος οὐκ ἀντελαμβάνοντο
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #26 on: May 21, 2014, 12:38:34 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
HOW MATURE OF YOU.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
xOrthodox4Christx
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Protestant (Inquirer)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Christianity
Posts: 3,628



« Reply #27 on: May 21, 2014, 12:40:23 AM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages. They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.

Just because the govt. didn't do it doesn't mean they couldn't have. They certainly have the means. The US government violates it's own laws so often it's not even surprising anymore.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 12:45:50 AM by xOrthodox4Christx » Logged

"Years ago I recognized my kinship with all living beings, and I made up my mind that I was not one bit better than the meanest on earth.... While there is a lower class, I am in it, and while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free." (Eugene Debs)
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #28 on: May 21, 2014, 12:43:24 AM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages. They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.


Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.
doesn't matter who gathers the poisonous fruit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
(did you by chance ever see "Bonfire of the Vanities"?
but your self serving hypocrisy is noted.
I don't have a sports team, do not watch sports, couldn't care less if blacks or anyone else goes to games-so how was my post serving me?  No one seems to be upset about the fact he was cheating on his wife-but since he was doing that out in the open, that would be fruit just lying around on the ground.  Rotting.
The "fruit...tree" doctrine only applies to law enforcement and gov't agenicies, not private individuls.
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #29 on: May 21, 2014, 12:45:44 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
HOW MATURE OF YOU.

It's funny reading this comment next to one of these:

Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #30 on: May 21, 2014, 12:46:19 AM »

If it were possible for a healthy society to exist under merely a civic government, I would not care either. However, a society, such as ours and most in the West, without also a meaningful Church government is fundamentally unhealthy -- imbalanced, and deranged -- and gay marriage is one symptom of that.

Perhaps you would prefer, say, an Islamic theocracy?
It would last longer...and be able to function as a society.

Please feel free to join a functional theocratic society. Sudan? Nigeria, perhaps? I prefer separation of religion and state, myself.
Maybe if Russia goes a tad more in theocratic/symphonic direction.

They used to have total separation of church and state in Mexico.  I guess you missed your chance.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #31 on: May 21, 2014, 12:47:00 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
HOW MATURE OF YOU.

It's funny reading this comment next to one of these:


"Do as I say, not as I do" and all that.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #32 on: May 21, 2014, 12:47:05 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel I know, but who are you?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #33 on: May 21, 2014, 12:48:17 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.

"Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy."

Ezekiel I know, but who are you?

Moses?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #34 on: May 21, 2014, 12:49:02 AM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages. They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.


Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.
doesn't matter who gathers the poisonous fruit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
(did you by chance ever see "Bonfire of the Vanities"?
but your self serving hypocrisy is noted.
I don't have a sports team, do not watch sports, couldn't care less if blacks or anyone else goes to games-so how was my post serving me?  No one seems to be upset about the fact he was cheating on his wife-but since he was doing that out in the open, that would be fruit just lying around on the ground.  Rotting.
The "fruit...tree" doctrine only applies to law enforcement and gov't agenicies, not private individuls.
I'm not sure about the CA law, but it was said to be like the old statute in IL, which did apply to private individuals, under penalty of criminal prosecution.

I recall that there was some similar law that Clinton was trying to use to get Linda Tripp silenced in MD.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #35 on: May 21, 2014, 12:52:17 AM »

I don't care either if to people want I be together and call it "marriage' even If I believe and know they are only fooling themselves.  Go ahead, be happy.  The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  Though they claim that they respect divergence of opinion on the subject, their willingness and desire to use the power of the state to ensure conformity of thought makes me very wary of any chance they'll be happy with simply state recognition if their marriages. They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

Doesn't matter, at least not in the US. Thankfully we have a separation of church and state.

In principle. The Constitution doesn't uphold itself.
We supposedly have a right to privacy too.  Tell that to Donald Sterling.
I thought it was his girlfriend who leaked his conversation to the press, not a governmental body. But your self-serving post is noted.

Just because the govt. didn't do it doesn't mean they couldn't have. They certainly have the means. The US government violates it's own laws so often it's not even surprising anymore.
it's not like the government is listening in
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #36 on: May 21, 2014, 12:59:03 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.

You might want to revisit your understanding of that event:

Quote from: Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

πλὴν τοῦτο τὸ ἀνόμημα Σοδομων τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου ὑπερηφανία ἐν πλησμονῇ ἄρτων καὶ ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ οἴνου ἐσπατάλων αὐτὴ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες αὐτῆς τοῦτο ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῇ καὶ ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῆς καὶ χεῖρα πτωχοῦ καὶ πένητος οὐκ ἀντελαμβάνοντο
Ezekiel 16:50:"They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." NIV.     
 καὶ ἐμεγαλαύχουν καὶ ἐποίησαν ἀνομήματα ἐνώπιόν μου καὶ ἐξῆρα αὐτάς καθὼς εἶδον."
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #37 on: May 21, 2014, 12:59:52 AM »

I hope we do not end up like Sodom and Gomorrah on account of all the faggies and lesbians running around.
-- LXX.

You might want to revisit your understanding of that event:

Quote from: Ezekiel 16:49
Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fulness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.

πλὴν τοῦτο τὸ ἀνόμημα Σοδομων τῆς ἀδελφῆς σου ὑπερηφανία ἐν πλησμονῇ ἄρτων καὶ ἐν εὐθηνίᾳ οἴνου ἐσπατάλων αὐτὴ καὶ αἱ θυγατέρες αὐτῆς τοῦτο ὑπῆρχεν αὐτῇ καὶ ταῖς θυγατράσιν αὐτῆς καὶ χεῖρα πτωχοῦ καὶ πένητος οὐκ ἀντελαμβάνοντο
Ezekiel 16:50:"They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen." NIV.    
 καὶ ἐμεγαλαύχουν καὶ ἐποίησαν ἀνομήματα ἐνώπιόν μου καὶ ἐξῆρα αὐτάς καθὼς εἶδον."
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 01:03:18 AM by Gamliel » Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #38 on: May 21, 2014, 01:00:55 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,722



« Reply #39 on: May 21, 2014, 01:07:13 AM »

Sad day when we are forced to choose between secularism and Islam. No, what I "would prefer" is the Church to assume its just role beside the State, governing the souls that (rightly perceived) really are society. It is the just role of the State to be guardian, certainly; but only guarding the sheep is fatal neglect. It is the role of the Church to lead and heal us, and that too is government, which deserves and requires an authority equal to the State's. The West is suffering, schizophrenic and starving, because it has for so long rejected this truth.

I do think that a (somewhat restrained) symbiotic relationship between Church and state is ideal and for the best, but I'm not so sure about the "equal authority" language.
Logged
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #40 on: May 21, 2014, 01:11:52 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #41 on: May 21, 2014, 01:23:55 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.
+++
Logged
NicholasMyra
Avowed denominationalist
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 6,069


On Sabbatical until Mid-December


« Reply #42 on: May 21, 2014, 01:43:02 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.
I don't think St. Jude was exegeting the passage in question.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #43 on: May 21, 2014, 01:45:03 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.
I don't think St. Jude was exegeting the passage in question.
I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #44 on: May 21, 2014, 02:27:41 AM »

There's no question that in Genesis Sodom's citizens attempted male-on-male rape. Ezekiel and Jude don't contradict each other, then; but Ezekiel prophesying in the Holy Spirit puts that incident in its proper light, as a symptom of a culture barren of justice, temperance, and love. Only the Church can husband a culture abundant in such virtues.

And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #45 on: May 21, 2014, 02:31:34 AM »


And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?

No, it isn't. The Kingdom of God is not of this world.
Logged
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #46 on: May 21, 2014, 03:21:45 AM »

Seriously, I am sick of hearing about this BS.  They just made gay marriage legal in my state.  Great!  I could care less!!

Weather or not they get married does not matter to me, it doesn't change my opinion and doesn't change Church teaching.  Homosexuals are not the new civil rights leaders of our day and they are not heros.  Homosexuals not getting married and segregation are not on par, IMO.  I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.  But nobody says a word lest we offend a very small minority in this country.

Anyway, I hope the Supreme Court just rules it legal in all states so the news can obsess on something else for a while.  And another thing...Oh I got to go, CNN just broke in with major breaking news about Led Zepplin...(something any Led Zepplin fan heard about years ago)

Indifference sure used to sound different
Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #47 on: May 21, 2014, 03:23:38 AM »

The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  

It sounds like you are speaking of some conspiratorial "gay agenda" here. "They" are not getting together underground and planning ways to change church doctrine. Your indifference is very welcome to them, I suspect, as it is better than your overt opposition. I suspect that "live and let live" is exactly what most gays are looking for in regards to gay marriage.

Actually, all the gays in Maricopa County have a once a month luncheon in a basement to discuss ways to change church doctrine.

It's the first Tuesday of the month, at 1 P.M.  It's catered, but no one ever eats because we don't want to get fat.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:24:08 AM by JamesRottnek » Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
JamesRottnek
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Anglican
Jurisdiction: Episcopal Diocese of Arizona
Posts: 5,123


I am Bibleman; putting 'the' back in the Ukraine


« Reply #48 on: May 21, 2014, 03:28:04 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.

Don't worry, I haven't gone after any angels lately; in fact, I don't know anyone who has.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 03:29:29 AM by JamesRottnek » Logged

I know a secret about a former Supreme Court Justice.  Can you guess what it is?

The greatest tragedy in the world is when a cigarette ends.

American Spirits - the eco-friendly cigarette.

Preston Robert Kinney (September 8th, 1997-August 14, 2011
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #49 on: May 21, 2014, 08:33:20 AM »

I mostly am just excited for the day when my facebook newsfeed will no longer consist of endless posts of rainbow flags and people holding gay rights signs in front of courthouses.
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 08:33:49 AM by TheTrisagion » Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 759



« Reply #50 on: May 21, 2014, 08:58:34 AM »

I mostly am just excited for the day when my facebook newsfeed will no longer consist of endless posts of rainbow flags and people holding gay rights signs in front of courthouses.

This is pretty much what my original complaint/venting was about.  The news in the U.S. focuses on pointless dribble such as this while there are real problems in the rest of the world.  I try to watch international broadcasts online and can only think that if the average American understood that 'gay marriage' is on the bottom of the list in other countries it might bring some perspective.  Gay marriage isn't on the top of the priority list when you can't feed your people, there are terrorist organizations left and right, your economy has collapsed, etc etc..

In the meantime here we are thinking that if gays don't get married, it's a horrible injustice.  I'm just so tired of seeing everyday how dumb this country has gotten!  I wasn't around 40-50 years ago but I didn't have to be to understand just how much smarter we were as a nation than today.  It's telling when a head of state will comment on some private comments made that are racist before they will comment on the thousands of Christians being slaughtered by Muslims. 

I don't think we are too far away from a catastrophic event here in the West but not necessarily because of some correlation to Sodom and Gomorrah.   The Pentagon recently released a report that said it would cost 2 billion to protect our electric grid from an attack for about 20 years which the government refused.  In the meantime, we give Pakistan 2 billion a year.  Gay marriage is just a symptom of the diseased mind that is the average Westerner.  So are all the other things I mentioned and it all comes down to one thing: self.  The common good principle is dead and will not return. 

I realize this post was all over the place but to sum it up, to me, gay marriage is just symptomatic of a much larger problem.  An all consumed, selfish, moronic society.
Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #51 on: May 21, 2014, 09:14:59 AM »

Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #52 on: May 21, 2014, 09:17:48 AM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.
"just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire. Yet in the same way these men, also by dreaming, defile the flesh, and reject authority"-Jude.

Don't worry, I haven't gone after any angels lately; in fact, I don't know anyone who has.
they being bodiless powers-not to mention sexless-that goes without saying.

"the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, all the people from every quarter; and they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have relations with them." But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, But Lot went out to them at the doorway, and shut the door behind him, and said, "Please, my brothers, do not act wickedly. "Now behold, I have two daughters who have not had relations with man; please let me bring them out to you, and do to them whatever you like; only do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the shelter of my roof." Gen. 19:4-8

Your self serving scholasticism noted though.  
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #53 on: May 21, 2014, 09:18:48 AM »

The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable.  

It sounds like you are speaking of some conspiratorial "gay agenda" here. "They" are not getting together underground and planning ways to change church doctrine. Your indifference is very welcome to them, I suspect, as it is better than your overt opposition. I suspect that "live and let live" is exactly what most gays are looking for in regards to gay marriage.

Actually, all the gays in Maricopa County have a once a mont
h luncheon in a basement to discuss ways to change church doctrine.

It's the first Tuesday of the month, at 1 P.M.  It's catered, but no one ever eats because we don't want to get fat.
I take it that it is seafood, all those fish not knowing they are wet.
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Hamartolos
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 759



« Reply #54 on: May 21, 2014, 09:22:58 AM »

This conversation kind of reminds me of an interesting story I heard regarding the bishops at Vatican II in the 1960s.  I can't recall what the name of the bishop was but he said during open deliberations/discussion, many of the Western European/US bishops were excited thinking that this Council would open the doors to married and women priests.  Meanwhile, the rest of the bishops from the East/Southern Hemisphere balked at this saying that they are simply trying to keep their women alive.

 
« Last Edit: May 21, 2014, 09:23:44 AM by Hamartolos » Logged

Formerly known as "mctavix"
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,271



« Reply #55 on: May 21, 2014, 10:27:16 AM »

The problem is that the gay rights supporters in this country are not happy with you bing indifferent or not caring less.  To them, that's equivalent to bigotry and homophobia.  To them, you must celebrate it and sanction it.  A live and let live attitude is unacceptable. 

It sounds like you are speaking of some conspiratorial "gay agenda" here. "They" are not getting together underground and planning ways to change church doctrine. Your indifference is very welcome to them, I suspect, as it is better than your overt opposition. I suspect that "live and let live" is exactly what most gays are looking for in regards to gay marriage.

I'd like to believe that a "live and let live" mantra is what most everyone looks for regardless of demographic.  However, the gay lobby or the klaxons-- at least the ones that make the rounds on cable news shows or write op-eds for newspapers or the ones on facebook--in my view, are charlatans and deceitful. 

I remember when gay civil unions started to be talked about as a substantive issue.  The main reasons behind that rally for legal recognition of such unions were things like a) beneficiaries of social security  or other inheritance b)visitations at hospitals, all things which could easily be remedied by altering laws related to inheritance and power of attorney.  That wasn't enough.  "No," they said, "We have to have civil unions. We're not even talking about marriage."  So everyone else cave and gave them civil unions where things like what I listed would be protected and taken care of.  Then, a few years later down the line, the same people say "Civil Unions aren't enough. It's discrimination.  We need to be married."  And on and on we have come.  So, frankly, I don't trust the gay agitators.  They are deceitful.  They were given everything they asked for with civil unions saying that would be enough.  Obviously, it wasn't.

And how is the "live and let live" attitude definitely supported by members of the gay community when some of their ranks bring lawsuit upon lawsuit, threaten children with death and file criminal charges against a small business owner who doesn't want to rent out a room at a bed and breakfast to gay couples or who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding or doesn't want to be the photographer of a gay wedding ceremony, etc.?  Where is the condemnation of those actions by the gay community?  The hypocrisy is telling.  I'm especially astonished when gay marriage advocates say they want the government out of marriage but want the government to impose sanctions on those who feel and think differently.  Again, the hypocrisy is telling.  Freedom of conscience, I suppose, only applies if my conscience is in sync with theirs.

As Isa already made the analogy, I will just restate:  It's no different than moderate Muslims vs. Wahabbi Islamofascist Muslims.  The "moderates" don't do anything (or barely anything) to condemn the terrorism of the fascist Muslims and then bemoan that they are painted with the same brush.  Until the "moderates" of the gay community start standing up and defending everyone's right to disagree on the subject of gay marriage or homosexuality in general, then don't be surprised if all gays are painted with the same brush, too. 
Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,722



« Reply #56 on: May 21, 2014, 10:34:55 AM »

And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?

You'll have to define what you mean by "co-regnant," and also keep in mind that Orthodoxy is quite varied. Certain traditions have a large history of close relations between the Throne and the Altar, but others do not (e.g. some [many?] of the Oriental Orthodox). Similarly, there are fathers (e.g. St. Augustine) that held to a very estranged relationship at best, and others held differing views going to the opposite end of the spectrum.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #57 on: May 21, 2014, 12:35:26 PM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.

What an odd comment. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #58 on: May 21, 2014, 01:21:03 PM »

HOW MATURE OF YOU.
Thank you.
Logged
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #59 on: May 21, 2014, 02:10:39 PM »


And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?

No, it isn't. The Kingdom of God is not of this world.

The Kingdom does not belong to the world, but it is present just as God is present. "As in heaven, so on earth" &c. Further, the Church is supposed to be an earthly icon of the heavenly Kingdom. We can think about what that means.

You'll have to define what you mean by "co-regnant," and also keep in mind that Orthodoxy is quite varied. Certain traditions have a large history of close relations between the Throne and the Altar, but others do not (e.g. some [many?] of the Oriental Orthodox). Similarly, there are fathers (e.g. St. Augustine) that held to a very estranged relationship at best, and others held differing views going to the opposite end of the spectrum.

I don't mean anything technical by it. Just that both Church and State are needed for a whole society (note: not churches, or some mere availability of churchmen, but the Church), and that both need authority in order to do their kinds of work.

The following from Goarch.org's "Our Faith" section:

Quote
The Church ... refuses to accept a compartmentalized self-undestanding that restricts the interests and concerns of the Church to a narrowly defined "religious sphere." The Orthodox Church, throughout its history, has both used and encouraged the arts, culture and education, and has addressed the whole range of social and public phenomena. Among these have been its relationship with government in general, and the exercise of civil power in concrete circumstances, i.e., politics. As a general principle, the Orthodox Church has held a position on the ideal of Church and State relations which may be called "the principle of synergy." ... The historical example for the principle of synergy in Church and State relationships is the model of the Byzantine Empire, which lasted over a thousand years (324 -1453). Recent scholarship has rejected the older viewpoint that in Byzantium the Church was subservient to the State, and now recognizes that the view of the Byzantine Church on this question was misunderstood by earlier researchers.

The article does go on to say that the Church must "adapt to political realities of time and place," that it is "nearly always impossible fully to implement the principle of synergy," and that the Church nowadays mostly just is happy to be allowed freedom to worship.

Such technicalities aside, I'd think it is obvious the population of the West suffers a dreadful epidemic of soul-sickness, and, to my view it is equally obvious only the Church's wise government could effect a cure.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
ialmisry
There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
Moderated
Hypatos
*****************
Offline Offline

Faith: جامعي Arab confesssing the Orthodox Faith of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: Antioch (for now), but my heart belongs to Alexandria
Posts: 38,135



« Reply #60 on: May 21, 2014, 02:22:19 PM »

I'm gonna go with the abominations God named, specifically. You can go with whatever you came up with, though. Good luck.

What an odd comment. 


LOL.

LET THIS BE A WARNING TO THOSE WHO COMPLAIN ABOUT NESTLING QUOTE BOXES!
Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth
Geh
scum par excellence
Warned
Member
***
Offline Offline

Faith: excessively cynical, amoral, nefarious, opportunistic, antisocial, sadistic, machiavellian, misanthropic, pessimistic, narcissistic, psychopathic, sociopathic, jaded, opulent self-absorbed navel-gazing
Jurisdiction: confines of my own idiocy
Posts: 77



« Reply #61 on: June 16, 2014, 08:45:51 PM »

They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

The priest only acts an agent of the state, since marriage is governed by the authority of the state and not the Church.

What gays want is for society to recognize that they are normal healthy human beings, and marriage may just be the last goal to achieve that recognition. Although I myself have reservations on the institution itself.

Its taken decades to decriminalize sodomy, put an end to gay harassment, abuse, discrimination, etc.

Marriage is not defined by the way you define it.
Logged

Quote from: Nikolaostheservant
tonight you die of a heart attack in your sleep. your at the pearly gates wanting to get in but you have not been very good nor have you been very bad, sin wise the scales are even. so to break the tie God asks you to explain this post you made, what u gona say?
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #62 on: June 16, 2014, 09:01:13 PM »

I deleted what I wrote. Because I felt it will bring a lot of heated arguments, and I'm not in a state of mind for that. Smiley
« Last Edit: June 16, 2014, 09:22:00 PM by Raylight » Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #63 on: June 28, 2014, 11:43:49 PM »

The most awesomely ridiculous website advocating gay marriage.  Apparently, unbeknownst to us all, St. Paul ORDAINED gay marriage and the Church has been hiding it from us.

http://www.brianbowenministries.com/ch-1-eunuch-births.html
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Nephi
Monster Tamer
Section Moderator
Protokentarchos
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Non-Chalcedonian Byzantine
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch
Posts: 4,722



« Reply #64 on: June 28, 2014, 11:49:36 PM »

The most awesomely ridiculous website advocating gay marriage.  Apparently, unbeknownst to us all, St. Paul ORDAINED gay marriage and the Church has been hiding it from us.

http://www.brianbowenministries.com/ch-1-eunuch-births.html

Logged
scamandrius
Crusher of Secrets; House Lannister
Taxiarches
**********
Online Online

Faith: Greek Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: I'm Greek and proud of it, damn it!
Posts: 6,271



« Reply #65 on: June 29, 2014, 12:13:02 AM »

They will use their political victories to try to enforce change in doctrines of churches that still refuse to marry gays. Mark my words, it will happen.

The priest only acts an agent of the state, since marriage is governed by the authority of the state and not the Church.

What gays want is for society to recognize that they are normal healthy human beings, and marriage may just be the last goal to achieve that recognition. Although I myself have reservations on the institution itself.

Its taken decades to decriminalize sodomy, put an end to gay harassment, abuse, discrimination, etc.

Marriage is not defined by the way you define it.

I don't think I ever defined it; I've just accepted the definition that has come down to us over time. But since you brought it up, pray tell, how is it defined?

Logged

I seek the truth by which no man was ever harmed--Marcus Aurelius

Those who do not read  history are doomed to get their facts from Hollywood--Anonymous

What earthly joy remains untouched by grief?--St. John Damascene
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #66 on: June 29, 2014, 03:32:36 AM »

Seriously, I am sick of hearing about this BS.  They just made gay marriage legal in my state.  Great!  I could care less!!

Weather or not they get married does not matter to me, it doesn't change my opinion and doesn't change Church teaching.  Homosexuals are not the new civil rights leaders of our day and they are not heros.  Homosexuals not getting married and segregation are not on par, IMO.  I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.  But nobody says a word lest we offend a very small minority in this country.

Anyway, I hope the Supreme Court just rules it legal in all states so the news can obsess on something else for a while.  And another thing...Oh I got to go, CNN just broke in with major breaking news about Led Zepplin...(something any Led Zepplin fan heard about years ago)


Homosexuals are heroes and they are the leaders of today's civil rights movement. Maybe to you they are not heroes, but in reality they are, they have been abused physically and emotionally and still the same happening to them in so many parts of the world, they still face legal punishments such as facing jail time and sometimes the death penalty itself, they have no legal protection in so many parts of the world, they are being killed in so many parts in the world as well. Yet, they still exist, still fight for their rights. To me and to plenty of reasonable objective people, they are heroes, and they are the leaders for the civil rights movement of today.

Gays as well want to just get over with it and get their God given rights, it is those Anti-Gay Christians such as the Catholic Church, Baptists, Evangelicals..etc who keep fight marriage equality. So how about those Christians stop their war against equality and everything will calm down.

Personally as a Christian who follows and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and His commandments, I'm in full support for marriage equality.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 03:41:28 AM by Raylight » Logged
Justin Kissel
Formerly Asteriktos
Protospatharios
****************
Online Online

Posts: 30,490



« Reply #67 on: June 29, 2014, 04:01:55 AM »

I knew a gay girl who wasn't a hero, but most of them are ok by me.
Logged

"By the way he dies as a human being he shows us what it is to be God." - Fr. John Behr
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #68 on: June 29, 2014, 06:01:22 AM »

I knew a gay girl who wasn't a hero, but most of them are ok by me.

The OP meant all of homosexuals as a group of people. And when I said they are heroes, I didn't mean that each individual is a hero.

Like saying Christians are heroes who fought and died for their faith, that doesn't mean each Christian is a hero who fought and died for his/her faith.

Get it ? Now go back to your reading smarty kitty  Grin
Logged
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 7,202


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #69 on: June 29, 2014, 06:02:51 AM »

I wouldn't say homosexuals are civil rights leaders, either.
Logged

Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #70 on: June 29, 2014, 06:16:13 AM »


Homosexuals are heroes and they are the leaders of today's civil rights movement. Maybe to you they are not heroes, but in reality they are, they have been abused physically and emotionally and still the same happening to them in so many parts of the world, they still face legal punishments such as facing jail time and sometimes the death penalty itself, they have no legal protection in so many parts of the world, they are being killed in so many parts in the world as well.

Substitute "homosexuals" for christians/buddhists/fat people/albinos and it would be just as valid.

Yet, they still exist, still fight for their rights. To me and to plenty of reasonable objective people, they are heroes, and they are the leaders for the civil rights movement of today. Gays as well want to just get over with it and get their God given rights

What "rights" are denied them in the west?

Yet another example of my distaste for the "rights of man" theory. Everyone can come up with a supposed "God-given right" that's denied him, and voila, suddenly society has to change because of some metaphysical fiction. This nonsense always causes political polarisation, extremism and partisanship, since nobody can compromise when it comes to "God-given rights". Damn you, Tom Paine.

So how about those Christians stop their war against equality and everything will calm down.

Every time equality is tried some apparatchiks end up even more equal than the rest.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 06:26:06 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #71 on: June 29, 2014, 06:59:43 AM »

Well said Cyrillic.

Funny part is, many of these "gays" don't even believe in a God to begin with.

And I wonder, for those who do, just what "god" gives them the right to engage in sodomy?
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #72 on: June 29, 2014, 07:23:53 AM »

Quote
Personally as a Christian who follows and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and His commandments, I'm in full support for marriage equality.
Then you better damn well support his definition of what a marriage is to begin with:

"4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…
-Matt 19:4-6


Damn, it's right there in black and white and many of you faux christians REFUSE to accept it.

You are being totally obstinate in your acceptance of sodomy and "gay" marriage. The Sin of Sodom is one of the four major sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, right up there with WILLFUL MURDER and oppressing the poor and stealing money from working people. You know you are deliberlately corrupting the minds and souls of children with this sexual perversion and defying the laws of the same Almighty God that you claim to worship and serve and STILL continue to justify this abomination. You are total hypocrites on this issue.

Homosexuality is a major sin of the flesh and strictly condemned by the Church and God himself in holy scripture, no matter what you say or what angle you try to come from or what argument you come up with. It is forbidden and hated by heaven, end of story. God doesn't care about your self-proclaimed "rights" in this culture or any other, HE strictly condemns it. That's it, end of story.

Even the atheists, pagans and the infidels know this is an abomination and they will all be you accusers on the judgment day if you continually persist on this path of denial and obstinacy in the Sin of Sodom.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #73 on: June 29, 2014, 07:34:17 AM »

Quote
They just made gay marriage legal in my state.  Great!  I could care less!!

But you should care. Silence in many ways is acceptance.

Silence is also one of the ways you can be an accessory to another's sin.

We should always speak against evil and never be silent in another's engaging in willful, mortal sin.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #74 on: June 29, 2014, 07:37:58 AM »

since marriage is governed by the authority of the state

Probably not, since the state grew out of marriage instead of the other way around.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 07:39:01 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
hecma925
Non-clairvoyant
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox
Jurisdiction: OCA - Diocese of the South
Posts: 7,202


Pray for me, a sinner.


WWW
« Reply #75 on: June 29, 2014, 07:49:54 AM »

Quote
Personally as a Christian who follows and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and His commandments, I'm in full support for marriage equality.
Then you better damn well support his definition of what a marriage is to begin with:

"4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…
-Matt 19:4-6


Damn, it's right there in black and white and many of you faux christians REFUSE to accept it.

You are being totally obstinate in your acceptance of sodomy and "gay" marriage. The Sin of Sodom is one of the four major sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, right up there with WILLFUL MURDER and oppressing the poor and stealing money from working people. You know you are deliberlately corrupting the minds and souls of children with this sexual perversion and defying the laws of the same Almighty God that you claim to worship and serve and STILL continue to justify this abomination. You are total hypocrites on this issue.

Homosexuality is a major sin of the flesh and strictly condemned by the Church and God himself in holy scripture, no matter what you say or what angle you try to come from or what argument you come up with. It is forbidden and hated by heaven, end of story. God doesn't care about your self-proclaimed "rights" in this culture or any other, HE strictly condemns it. That's it, end of story.

Even the atheists, pagans and the infidels know this is an abomination and they will all be you accusers on the judgment day if you continually persist on this path of denial and obstinacy in the Sin of Sodom.

+1
Logged

Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #76 on: June 29, 2014, 07:56:35 AM »

Quote
Personally as a Christian who follows and believes in the Lord Jesus Christ and His commandments, I'm in full support for marriage equality.
Then you better damn well support his definition of what a marriage is to begin with:

"4And He answered and said, "Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, 5and said, 'FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH '? 6"So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate."…
-Matt 19:4-6


Damn, it's right there in black and white and many of you faux christians REFUSE to accept it.

You are being totally obstinate in your acceptance of sodomy and "gay" marriage. The Sin of Sodom is one of the four major sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance, right up there with WILLFUL MURDER and oppressing the poor and stealing money from working people. You know you are deliberlately corrupting the minds and souls of children with this sexual perversion and defying the laws of the same Almighty God that you claim to worship and serve and STILL continue to justify this abomination. You are total hypocrites on this issue.

Homosexuality is a major sin of the flesh and strictly condemned by the Church and God himself in holy scripture, no matter what you say or what angle you try to come from or what argument you come up with. It is forbidden and hated by heaven, end of story. God doesn't care about your self-proclaimed "rights" in this culture or any other, HE strictly condemns it. That's it, end of story.

Even the atheists, pagans and the infidels know this is an abomination and they will all be you accusers on the judgment day if you continually persist on this path of denial and obstinacy in the Sin of Sodom.


Yeeeeah, I would like to response to you, but since it is very clear that your situation is hopeless, I'm going to do some useful thing with my day rather than wasting it.


Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,681



WWW
« Reply #77 on: June 29, 2014, 07:59:53 AM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA

« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:02:42 AM by biro » Logged
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #78 on: June 29, 2014, 10:40:16 AM »

Honestly, the Gay Marriage issue is quite a tough nut to crack for me. Rejecting gay marriage would give impressions that one is oppressing the homosexual community. On the other hand, to accept it is to compromise our Doctrines and Beliefs given that Sacred Scripture obviously is *against* homosexuality and in the natural world, it is used for....."Evil" purposes such as dominance in the case of dolphins or would simply lead to higher rates of sexually transmitted diseases. Of course, in primates, homosexual acts are usually for "bonding" within the group but the way I see it is that it is an act out of "lust" rather than a physical expression of love. Given that animals have sexual needs too, these animals simply acted in accordance to that need out of instinct which stems from the need to pass on genes to the next generation through engaging in homosexual acts in order to fulfill that need. While it does not fulfill the biological and Evolutionary purpose of the sexual urge, there needs to be a mechanism to encourage such behavior through making the acts pleasurable. As a result, the homosexual behavior in primates are simply out of lust, and the need to fulfill an Evolutionary Need as it allows for each animal within the group of primates to have what they want, that is the pleasure derived from such activity.

Given that human beings are distinct from animals as we are Icons of God, our purpose of engaging in sexual behavior must be higher than that of animals. We reproduce to pass on our genes but the act itself is also conducted as a physical expression of Love between the male and the female, who are married of course where they become one flesh. By engaging in homosexuality, one would compromise this as we are simply acting like animals which is logical given the sinful nature of humanity. We are simply degrading ourselves by discarding our being that is the Icon of God by engaging in homosexual behavior. As a result, of this, I would have to reject the notion of homosexual unions.

However, we must be clear that homosexuals are still human beings and remember that they still have sexual urges just as we do but simply towards members of the same gender. Hence, we must be careful to not support laws or initiatives that segregate or breach their rights as human beings or "second class" simply because of their sexual inclinations.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 10:41:59 AM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #79 on: June 29, 2014, 11:27:39 AM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

It's about these people were so reprobate in their thinking, nothing was out of bounds for them. Ramapant homosexual sex and sexual perversions of all kinds, there was no level they wouldn't sink to, to satisfy their abominable cravings and appettites. Even the RAPE OF OTHER MEN. This is evidently clear and sound teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, regardless WHICH SIDE OF THE SCHISM YOU ARE ON.

You go ahead and try to protestant-ize your own version of sodomy or scripture, but CATHOLIC teaching is abundantly clear;


"If there's any misrepresenting going on, it's being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.


http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #80 on: June 29, 2014, 11:43:22 AM »

Quote
Yeeeeah, I would like to response to you, but since it is very clear that your situation is hopeless, I'm going to do some useful thing with my day rather than wasting it.
You don't respond because you have nothing to respond with, Ray.

I'm sorry if you don't like me or what the Church teaches on the sodomy issue, but it is what it is. You want to go on with this charade of believing that you can justify this abomination in some way, go ahead. You want to join a church that accepts and tolerates this nonsense, go ahead. Go ahead and become an Anglician because they are totally on board with this tolerance and acceptance of sexual perversion and sodomy. But know one thing, the Catholic Church IS NOT. Never was and never will be, no matter what some liberal or closet homosexual or pedophile priest, bishop or pope says or does. The Catholic church teaching on this issue does not or will not and will ever change on condemning open, unrepentent homosexuality. Christ did not come to change the Law, he is the fullfillment of the Law. the Church is the mystical body of Christ. Do not think for one minute that you can be part of this mystical body and consciously engaging or accepting sodomy or homosexuality or whatever you want to call it.

If you do, YOUR situation is hopeless, not mine.


You want to do something useful? Go find a traditional RC priest or even an EO priest and ask him if the Church accepts sodomy, "gay" marriage or homosexual sex. And then come back and tell me my situation is hopeless.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #81 on: June 29, 2014, 12:29:53 PM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

It's about these people were so reprobate in their thinking, nothing was out of bounds for them. Ramapant homosexual sex and sexual perversions of all kinds, there was no level they wouldn't sink to, to satisfy their abominable cravings and appettites. Even the RAPE OF OTHER MEN. This is evidently clear and sound teachings and doctrines of the Catholic Church, regardless WHICH SIDE OF THE SCHISM YOU ARE ON.

You go ahead and try to protestant-ize your own version of sodomy or scripture, but CATHOLIC teaching is abundantly clear;


"If there's any misrepresenting going on, it's being perpetrated by your parish priest. There is nothing in Genesis 18 or 19 which could support his theory that a lack of hospitality was the crime that caused God to annihilate Sodom and Gomorrah. In Genesis 18 God said, "The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great, and their sin [singular] is so grave . . ." (v. 20). What was the sin which "cried out" for punishment?

Genesis 19 recounts the story of how Abraham's nephew, Lot, entertained two angels at his home in Sodom. Word got around that Lot had some visiting men in his home, and "the townsmen of Sodom, both young and old," gathered outside his home, clamoring for the two visitors to be turned over so that they could be homosexually raped: "Where are the men who came to your house tonight? Bring them out to us that we might have intimacies with them."

Notice what's going on here. The strangers had been shown hospitality by Lot and his family (vv. 1-3). The townsmen didn't cry out to Lot that they wanted to be "inhospitable" to the visitors, but that they wanted to have intercourse with them, which is something markedly different. Lot attempts to quell the mob by offering them his two virgin daughters, suspecting that because these men were homosexuals they would refuse. The entire account revolves around a single sin: homosexuality.


http://www.newadvent.org/library/almanac_thisrock92.htm

While the citizens of Sodom have the intentions of raping Lot's guests, it is still an inhospitable behavior as hospitability requires the host to treat the guest with respect. The act of raping is not respect especially given that it is non consensual between the two parties. Clearly, the situation also showed that that the men wanted to rape Lot's visitors who are Angels given that Lot's automatic reply was to offer his daughters to the men instead. This clearly shows rape as, Lot is simply trying to assure the safety of his guests whom he obviously knows are Angels sent from the Lord himself, by offering his daughters. Further on, we see the men getting violent, furthering the allusion of their attempt to break in and rape the angels at all costs.

Clearly, such an act is inhospitable given that these are the residents of Sodom that should instead do the right thing by treating their guests with respect and dignity. Clearly, their immediate demand for Lot to 'know' his guests show that these men do not even asked for the consent of these angels, hereby making the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah, as partially being "inhospitable".

Genesis 13:13 prior also make note that the people of Sodom were "were very wicked, and sinners before the face of the Lord, beyond measure."

When compared to Ezekiel 16:49, it compliments Genesis 13:13 and the traditional Jewish interpretation of the Sins of Sodom in which also affirmed Sodom neglecting the poor and the needy by giving money to beggars and refusing to sell them food, leaving them to die and then after that, reclaim the money. Biro is wrong when he/she?? said that the sin of Sodom is the neglectance of Widows and its daughters, the verse ezekiel 16:49 focuses on the Sodomites lack of empathy and care for the poor. He/she?? is still right in the sense that it is not solely homosexuality that is the sin of Sodom, it is one of its sins.

In regards to your accusation of the Anglican Communion, it should be noted that they have a divided stance on homosexuality, they don't all unanimously accept homosexuality. All the Anglicans I know of are against homosexuality and there was even one that I know of that gotten offended by the mere mention of homosexual Anglican priests. I know you may be heated up that some of us here take a liberal stand towards homosexuality but it could simply be out of an act of sympathy and empathy due to how much they have to suffer. I honestly can say that at times, I actually come close to accepting it as "normal" until getting hit by the reminder that Sacred Scriptures and Tradition does not affirm or accept it. I can only say that I support the notion that the discrimination of homosexuals should stop but I must say in regards to marriage, I must disagree on religious and logical grounds.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 12:31:40 PM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #82 on: June 29, 2014, 02:40:33 PM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Why can't it be both?  I read Scripture and it seems clear to me that it is both.  Picking only one to the exclusion of the other seems to disregard Scripture in service of an agenda. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Tallitot
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Jewish
Jurisdiction: United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism
Posts: 2,658



WWW
« Reply #83 on: June 29, 2014, 02:51:33 PM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Logged

Proverbs 22:7
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #84 on: June 29, 2014, 05:22:37 PM »

The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #85 on: June 29, 2014, 07:09:00 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #86 on: June 29, 2014, 07:49:51 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.
Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,978


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #87 on: June 29, 2014, 08:03:11 PM »

I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.

It is. And it's one of the most common genocidal tactics to eradicate a group--preventing their reproduction. This is why some really backward Islamic theocracies don't allow non-Muslim females to marry non-Muslim males. However, in regards to homosexual marriage, it really makes no difference since they can't have children anyway. I find it very repulsive and downright abominable how convicted criminals are allowed to be married in prison but law-abiding, tax-paying homosexuals can't. Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages. Either a) entirely remove the government from marriage. No one gets to be happy. b) make homosexual tax payers exempt from subsidizing heterosexual marriages, or c) give marriage to every tax payer.

Quote
But nobody says a word lest we offend a very small minority in this country.

Have you visited the Southern US or really anywhere other than the metropolitan cities? LGBT people are still the most stigmatized group in this country, second only perhaps to atheists. Their parents often hate them and drive them to suicide; bullies tease them. Religious people demonize them; society as a whole mocks and insults them.

My only complaint with the LGBT Movement is the whole "gender identity/gender theory" mumbo jumbo. Forcing others to accommodate what you think you are simply because you feel that way--regardless of not having the right DNA and social norms like liking dresses not biologically being associated with your sex at all--is not only unscientific, ignoring the very real biological differences between us, but it's also rude and places an extra burden on society as a whole, especially in regards to not even being able to segregate bathrooms with them screwing it up, and them screwing up the biology classroom with political correctness.

I place these people in the same category as I do Protestant YECs who crap on science and force everyone to accommodate it or else they scream oppression.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:04:26 PM by JamesR » Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #88 on: June 29, 2014, 08:03:10 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Those passages don't have anything to do with male-male or female-female sexual activity.  They're actually about road rage.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #89 on: June 29, 2014, 08:05:08 PM »

Have you visited the Southern US or really anywhere other than the metropolitan cities?

Have you?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #90 on: June 29, 2014, 08:05:28 PM »

Have you visited the Southern US

Have you?

Edit: Mor got there first.

Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:06:56 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,681



WWW
« Reply #91 on: June 29, 2014, 08:10:14 PM »

Uh, gay people pay taxes too. They are not exempt by some magical force field.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #92 on: June 29, 2014, 08:11:58 PM »

Uh, gay people pay taxes too. They are not exempt by some magical force field.

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidised.

I used to be very impartial about this but it's like this is all some people think about!  I can't believe the audacity some people have to argue that them not being able to marry someone is akin to being lynched or beaten to death.

It is. And it's one of the most common genocidal tactics to eradicate a group--preventing their reproduction.

Homosexuals in a marriage can't reproduce.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:17:22 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #93 on: June 29, 2014, 08:36:45 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.
Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #94 on: June 29, 2014, 08:37:44 PM »

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

 Huh

What then does it mean?
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:38:19 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Justin Kolodziej
Party per fess argent and gules; in chief a Latin cross bottony sable between two lozenges azure; in base a wheel, or.
Elder
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Converting
Jurisdiction: GOC-Kallinikos....one day
Posts: 293



« Reply #95 on: June 29, 2014, 08:44:39 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?

[21] Because that, when they knew God, they have not glorified him as God, or given thanks; but became vain in their thoughts, and their foolish heart was darkened. [22] For professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. [23] And they changed the glory of the incorruptible God into the likeness of the image of a corruptible man, and of birds, and of fourfooted beasts, and of creeping things. [24] Wherefore God gave them up to the desires of their heart, unto uncleanness, to dishonour their own bodies among themselves. [25] Who changed the truth of God into a lie; and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

[26] For this cause God delivered them up to shameful affections. For their women have changed the natural use into that use which is against nature. [27] And, in like manner, the men also, leaving the natural use of the women, have burned in their lusts one towards another, men with men working that which is filthy, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was due to their error. [28] And as they liked not to have God in their knowledge, God delivered them up to a reprobate sense, to do those things which are not convenient; [29] Being filled with all iniquity, malice, fornication, avarice, wickedness, full of envy, murder, contention, deceit, malignity, whisperers, [30] Detractors, hateful to God, contumelious, proud, haughty, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,

[31] Foolish, dissolute, without affection, without fidelity, without mercy. [32] Who, having known the justice of God, did not understand that they who do such things, are worthy of death; and not only they that do them, but they also that consent to them that do them.
Logged

Where even the last two or three are gathered in His name, He is there in their midst.
DeniseDenise
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,693


Pre-heating the Oven!


« Reply #96 on: June 29, 2014, 08:49:59 PM »


Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?


The same system that allows us un-married folk to actually retire.

This whole 'governmental subsidy' thing is a GIANT straw man argument here....

Not all perfectly hetero people are married and have enough kids to keep the system running either.......so using that as a judgement of value in letter there either be or not be 'civil partnerships' is a false issue.

Logged
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,978


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #97 on: June 29, 2014, 08:50:52 PM »


And the concept of a Church co-regnant with a State: surely this is basic Orthodoxy?

No, it isn't. The Kingdom of God is not of this world.

LOL

Tell that to the state-worshipping Russian Church all throughout her history.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #98 on: June 29, 2014, 08:53:06 PM »


Yet, we have no problem using THEIR tax dollars to subsidize our own heterosexual marriages.

Who pays the retirement of the homosexuals?


The same system that allows us un-married folk to actually retire.

Gays are allowed to retire.

Since the pension system is one big ponzi scheme it's necessary for it to work that lots of young people enter the workforce. Hence, subsidising straight marriage, which is the only type of marriage that can produce new taxpayers, is in the advantage of society, whilst subsidising gay marriage is not.

Not all perfectly hetero people are married and have enough kids to keep the system running either.......so using that as a judgement of value in letter there either be or not be 'civil partnerships' is a false issue.

Not really.
« Last Edit: June 29, 2014, 08:54:52 PM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #99 on: June 29, 2014, 08:56:19 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?


Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

However, I'm focusing on the Old Testament right now, the question still there until answered.

Peace.
Logged
Antonis
"The Most Honourable The Morquess of Something"
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: GOA - Direct Archdiocesan District
Posts: 1,674


You must try this Balkan blend, Barsanuphius.


« Reply #100 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:03 PM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?
It seems the logical conclusion would be that if God doesn't favor male homosexual sex he wouldn't favor female homosexual sex either.

I know Scripture gives God masculine qualities, but I doubt a stereotypical penchant for lesbian sex is among them.
Logged

As I dissipate, Christ precipitates.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #101 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:11 PM »

why Old Testament? What about Romans 1?


Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

However, I'm focusing on the Old Testament right now, the question still there until answered.

Peace.

There is no problem at all with homosexuality, whether in terms of "same sex attraction" or the associated sexual activity.  God warmly approves.  Anyone who says otherwise is just full of hate.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
JamesR
Virginal Chicano Blood
Warned
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Eastern Orthodox (but doubtful)
Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church *of* America
Posts: 5,978


St. Augustine of Hippo pray for me!


« Reply #102 on: June 29, 2014, 09:03:36 PM »

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidized.

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it. Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States. Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all. The Roman Catholic Church is hardly making this any better by prohibiting people from using birth control. The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.
Logged

Quote
You're really on to something here. Tattoo to keep you from masturbating, chew to keep you from fornicating... it's a whole new world where you outsource your crosses. You're like a Christian entrepreneur or something.
Quote
James, you have problemz.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #103 on: June 29, 2014, 09:05:14 PM »

True, but having enough children is in the interest of society as a whole. This is why marriage is subsidized.

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it. Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States. Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all. The Roman Catholic Church is hardly making this any better by prohibiting people from using birth control. The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.

Don't be jealous. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #104 on: June 30, 2014, 01:00:34 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 01:08:26 AM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #105 on: June 30, 2014, 01:18:31 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #106 on: June 30, 2014, 01:20:10 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 

Indeed. Making things fit one's view, whatever contortions one needs to employ to do so.
Logged
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #107 on: June 30, 2014, 01:36:37 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #108 on: June 30, 2014, 01:51:25 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #109 on: June 30, 2014, 02:10:16 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 

Well, Robert Lentz has painted an "icon" of Christ and the beloved disciple as a gesture of promoting a positive view of homosexuality ....  Tongue Tongue Tongue Angry Angry Angry
Logged
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #110 on: June 30, 2014, 02:20:11 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


What you said in the first part is very interesting.

Regarding the Old Testament, still, such thing should be addressed whether man was superior or not. God doesn't discriminate, and if He is against homosexuality, He would have addressed the issue of sexual relations between women as well.

Usually Christians say that the Bible is only inerrant when it comes to theology and morals, well, I believe an issue like homosexuality is moral and should be addressed fully with no room for misunderstanding.

Why in the case of adultery, the Bible was very clear about who shall be punished, like in Leviticus 20:10 when said " And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ". It didn't say that only the man shall be punished and stopped. but continued to say the man and the woman, called them the adulterer and the adulteress. We find that nowhere when it comes to same-sex relations.

Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.


Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #111 on: June 30, 2014, 05:00:47 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 05:08:49 AM by LBK » Logged
Cyrillic
Warned
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Posts: 10,023


Cyrillico est imperare orbi universo


« Reply #112 on: June 30, 2014, 05:38:22 AM »

Having a lot of children harms the society more than it helps it.

Why the need to keep importing immigrants*? Why will there probably be no more pensions in Europe within a few decades? Answer: population ageing


*What people always forget is that, strangely enough, immigrants grow old as well.

Marriage as a whole has already fallen apart in the United States.

Isn't that a reason to support it?

Having a lot of children usually just means that the tax-payers have to pay for daycare, education, and welfare because the parents divorce and a single parent can't handle it all.

Remember, those children will pay your pensions when you're old.

Won't supporting a marriage so that it won't fall apart even save money? Money is one of the biggest reasons why marriages fall apart.

The Vatican ought to be paying for the strain that Hispanic Catholic teenage girls put on the tax-payers through constantly birthing babies without using birth control because apparently there's nothing wrong with sex before marriage as long as you do it irresponsibly without birth control.

I'm pretty sure that's not what the Vatican teaches.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 05:50:38 AM by Cyrillic » Logged

"Claret is the liquor for boys; port for men; but he who aspires to be a hero must drink brandy."
-Dr. Samuel Johnson
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #113 on: June 30, 2014, 06:09:26 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #114 on: June 30, 2014, 06:12:00 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?

Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #115 on: June 30, 2014, 07:45:07 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?



You're not answering the question. Why do you insist on an OT answer, when there is an answer in the NT?
Logged
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,681



WWW
« Reply #116 on: June 30, 2014, 07:47:57 AM »

Because everybody hauls out Leviticus, when it comes to gay men. Seems fair to ask the same about gay women.
Logged
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #117 on: June 30, 2014, 07:49:23 AM »

Because everybody hauls out Leviticus, when it comes to gay men. Seems fair to ask the same about gay women.

Does that make the NT irrelevant?
Logged
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #118 on: June 30, 2014, 08:14:21 AM »

Raylight, what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?


But I'm insisting on finding a clear verse from the Old Testament which says that female-female sex is an abomination and both women should put to death. The Torah written almost 1200 years before Christ, so for 1200 years there was no one verse in all of the Bible that says female-female sex is an abomination. That doesn't fit perfectly with the what some Christians believe that God condemned homosexuality. Because homosexuality is in men and women as well.

Is there any verse in the Old Testament that clearly says female-female sex is an abomination ?



You're not answering the question. Why do you insist on an OT answer, when there is an answer in the NT?

Actually you are the one who is not answering the question.

I asked you and any member here to give me a clear passage from the Old Testament saying that female-female sex is an abomination.

You asked me a question and if I answered you anyway, you will argue with me on the question you asked and then we will go into whole different topic, I'm not falling to that.

Do you have any verse in the Old Testament saying clearly that female-female sex is an abomination ? Yes or no ?


Answering my question with a question is not an answer.



« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:26:57 AM by Raylight » Logged
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #119 on: June 30, 2014, 08:31:39 AM »

It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

Can mean...may mean...may indirectly...didn't outrightly...I prefer. 

Indeed. Making things fit one's view, whatever contortions one needs to employ to do so.

If there's any misunderstanding on the Greek term, "pais" in my context refers to a possible definition and usage of the word, it does not mean that it is the only definition and term for the word. This is why I mention, "Can actually mean" and not "It means". I thought I make clear that I do not support homosexual unions here though I still advocate against the discrimination of homosexuals and laws that breach their rights as human beings.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #120 on: June 30, 2014, 08:32:17 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

Sorry bout the typo, that's what I meant
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #121 on: June 30, 2014, 08:42:45 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #122 on: June 30, 2014, 08:48:46 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.


« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:56:03 AM by Raylight » Logged
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #123 on: June 30, 2014, 08:52:37 AM »


. . .Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.
I think you mean παῖς (pais), not pias: http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=G3816

According to this site, the word is applied to Christ twice.  So if παῖς can mean "young gay lover", and Jesus was called παῖς not once but twice, and the Gospels say he helped the centurion despite his apparent homosexual union, and the Gospels don't address outright whether or not Jesus was married to a woman, and if he was always hanging around a bunch of men, and if the beloved disciple was the only one not married to a woman, and...

This is why we are supposed to do our homework. 

We should first note that "young gay lover" is just a possible definition of the word "Pais" besides "Servant" or "children". We cannot simply make the assumption that the use of the word "pais" everywhere in Sacred Scriptures as being "young gay lover" especially when the word itself have multiple definitions. Hence, we must utilize the definition that is most suitable to the context of the verse. The two verses that refers to Jesus as "pais" simply translates as "child" because it is reference of Jesus being the Son of God, who is the Father. This natural as the Son is the child of the Father and the main context of the two verses is that they are praying to God. This would render the "Young gay lover" usage in this context as ridiculous and absurd, hence we know it cannot be the case and it must be either "servant" or "child" which both have a better fit. Some translations render "Pais" in the two verses as "Servant", the KJV renders it as "child".

In the context of the Centurion, while it may be argued that it could simply be his servant which in such an era, is simply a slave. Why would a Centurion who could easily find replacements request Jesus to heal his "Pais"? It would be more logical if that person is someone whom he love hence the appropriate attribution of the person the Centurion requested for Jesus to heal to be his lover given that the term, "young gay lover" is a possible meaning of "Pais". Despite this, it shouldn't be used as grounds to accept homosexuality, rather it should be used to accept the fact that Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 08:53:51 AM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #124 on: June 30, 2014, 08:56:14 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.

Logged
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from reporting
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Truest Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,865


Proverbs 31:13


« Reply #125 on: June 30, 2014, 09:04:36 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.




Why would lesbianism be alright as opposed to "male-male sex"? I think this is wishful thinking on your part but I won't say the reason that I think you want it to be alright. You can guess.

Keep looking for that Scriptural justification though, you won't find it.
Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #126 on: June 30, 2014, 09:05:31 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.



I could use your post as a classic example of tunnel vision. The Bible also doesn't say anything about a lot of different topics, but that doesn't mean that we can pretend that Christ or His Church should approve of them. By your logic, since the OT doesn't say anything about me taking voyeuristic pictures of women in my neighborhood and posting them on the internet, I can safely assume that it is an acceptable practice.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #127 on: June 30, 2014, 09:06:05 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.



I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT. But some Christians for centuries used the OT to justify killing gays and today the people hearing some Christians say " homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuality is an abomination...etc ". So lets go and see where does it say it is "abomination". It says it in the OT, but wait, it talks about male-male sex, what about female-female sex ?

Also the New Testament, ONLY in Romans 1 mentioned something about female-female sex, but even Roman 1 have been explained perfectly that it doesn't condemn homosexuality as we know it today.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #128 on: June 30, 2014, 09:07:04 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

Peace.




Raylight, Christians cannot ignore the testimony of the New Testament. It seems strange that you strongly defend the inspired status of scripture, yet, on this matter, you dismiss the testimony of the NT.



I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT. But some Christians for centuries used the OT to justify killing gays and today the people hearing some Christians say " homosexuality is an abomination, homosexuality is an abomination...etc ". So lets go and see where does it say it is "abomination". It says it in the OT, but wait, it talks about male-male sex, what about female-female sex ?

Also the New Testament, ONLY in Romans 1 mentioned something about female-female sex, but even Roman 1 have been explained perfectly away so that it doesn't condemn homosexuality as we know it today.
Fixed for you.  Wink
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #129 on: June 30, 2014, 09:10:31 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.
Logged
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #130 on: June 30, 2014, 09:12:04 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.




Why would lesbianism be alright as opposed to "male-male sex"? I think this is wishful thinking on your part but I won't say the reason that I think you want it to be alright. You can guess.

Keep looking for that Scriptural justification though, you won't find it.

Oh no no, please go ahead, say what is the reason you think I want it to be alright. I insist.

Logged
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #131 on: June 30, 2014, 09:16:28 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.

Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #132 on: June 30, 2014, 09:18:31 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.


There are two or more opinions on every issue.  That doesn't make them valid. It just means that people believe what they want to believe. I know a guy who believes in "Christian wife-swapping".  Apparently, that is an opinion too.  Doesn't make it right though.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #133 on: June 30, 2014, 09:36:16 AM »



The sin of Sodom was neglecting the widows and orphans.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ezekiel%2016:49&version=DRA


biro, you and the other homosexual peddelers and enablers completely misrepresent that scripture.

The Sin of Sodom is blatantly obvious in scripture in Genesis, the men in that city WANTED TO RAPE THE OTHER MEN  who were guests of Lot, who just happened to be angels. It's got nothing to do with "neglecting widows and orphans" or being" inhospitable" to visitors.

Then why isn't this a condemnation of rape? How does it address a consensual relationship?
Because Sodom was guilty of many sins, not just rape and sexual perversion.

And what "consensual" relationship referring to? Two men? God already declared he "detests" that, in Leviticus I believe.

What about two women relationship ? I don't remember there is any rule against two women have relationship together in Leviticus nor in all of the Old Testament ? Hmmmm, I wonder why ?

There's a passage about women doing to each other as men, and vice versa. So lesbianism isn't off the hook.

Then please give me this passage from the Old Testament itself, that says the same exact thing like the one in Leviticus.

Because if God was condemning homosexuality ( homosexuality is something in men and women as well, not in men only ), then we should find a passage where it says that " woman shall not lie with a woman like a man " But I didn't find that anywhere in the Old Testament, that even the Rabbis didn't know what to do with the issue of lesbian sexual relations, but then they said it is a sin even though there is no law in the Torah says so.

I read about the passage where it says " Man shall not lie with a man....etc " and I don't see it in anyway condemns homosexual relationships, but that is another thing.

Please bring that passage from the Old Testament where it condemns lesbian sex and state a punishment for it.


It's impossible to find a quote condemning sexual relations between females in the Old Testament and Jesus is silent on the issue and did in fact heal a Centurion's servant which the original Greek term ,"pias", can actually mean "young gay lover" which may mean that Jesus may indirectly bless a homosexual union or simply is cool with it since He didn't outrightedly condemn the Centurion. I prefer to see this as Jesus willing to help anyone and loving them, regardless of sexual orientation.

This would pose a problem to those who reject homosexuality since by going according to the Old Testament, gay is not cool and lesbianism is cool. I do have a solution to this but it may sound sexist, men are typically viewed as sexual creatures and not women which is evidenced by the fact that in Ancient Times, the orgasm of the female does not matter at all, only of the male. Given this mindset at the time, the primary focus would be on the male and given that there wasn't any account of Sodom being responsible for Lesbianism, it could be assumed that the laws against homosexuality is based on the incident at Sodom in which God punished the Sodomites for their sins which includes homosexuality as well.

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


What you said in the first part is very interesting.

Regarding the Old Testament, still, such thing should be addressed whether man was superior or not. God doesn't discriminate, and if He is against homosexuality, He would have addressed the issue of sexual relations between women as well.

Usually Christians say that the Bible is only inerrant when it comes to theology and morals, well, I believe an issue like homosexuality is moral and should be addressed fully with no room for misunderstanding.

Why in the case of adultery, the Bible was very clear about who shall be punished, like in Leviticus 20:10 when said " And the man that committeth adultery with [another] man's wife, [even he] that committeth adultery with his neighbour's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. ". It didn't say that only the man shall be punished and stopped. but continued to say the man and the woman, called them the adulterer and the adulteress. We find that nowhere when it comes to same-sex relations.

Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.




Why would God do that when it we could easily make the connection using our sense of reason. Since men are equal to women, then it follows that what is applied to men would also apply to women, hence making the Old Testament's condemnation of homosexuality applicable to females as well. It should be noted that human beings are not entities that would not be able to draw connections based on statements. For example, if the statement "presidents are males" is true, it doesn't mean that females are not or are exempted from this statement, it can also be said that "presidents are females" since the male is a human being and the female is a human being and since both male and female are equal, then it follows that when the statement "presidents are males" is said, the opposite can be said as well. This applies to the rulings on homosexuality in the Old Testament.

In the case of  Leviticus 20:10, it is simple why the man and the woman involved must be punished. Adultery is defined as, "sex between a married person and someone who is not that person's wife or husband'. Given this definition, we know that because it is not rape between the two parties, then it follows that the two parties have mutually consented with each other and are in agreement for the conduction of the act of intercourse between the two parties involved. Since it is not forced and the woman is also into it, the punishment is administered to both parties as both are responsible for the act to happen.

When the punishment of homosexual relationships is mentioned, both parties involved in the act would be punished as well as with adultery. Given the same concept that man and woman are equal and the statements on "presidents", then it follows that the same would apply to females who engage in homosexual relationships as well.


As I said before, there is no quotes condemning lesbianism but given Romans, we know that the rulings must apply to women as well since it speaks of men lusting for men and women lusting for women in a negative light. If truly nothing negative about lesbianism is mentioned in the Old Testament, then why would the author mention lesbianism in a negative light? If the laws condemning homosexuality is applicable to women, then it would make more sense. If not, then why did the author suddenly decide to invoke a negative perception on lesbianism instead of solely targeting on homosexuality between males?
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
LBK
No Reporting Allowed
Warned
Toumarches
************
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 11,592


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #134 on: June 30, 2014, 09:38:45 AM »

Dear Raylight

Quote
Please get me passage from the Old Testament and lets not go into Romans 1, because that also have another way of understanding it and it does make perfect sense to me.

Anyone who wants to know what Romans 1 or Leviticus really means, there are plenty of websites explains it perfectly.

This is what you have said about what Romans says on the matter. It is clear you're dodging the issue.

I repeat my request: what is the reason you seek answers to the question of female homosexuality only from the Old Testament? Isn't the New Testament good enough for you?
Logged
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,663


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #135 on: June 30, 2014, 09:39:39 AM »

Quote
Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.
Thou shalt not eat human flesh....oh wait.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #136 on: June 30, 2014, 09:46:26 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #137 on: June 30, 2014, 09:51:17 AM »

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.

It's a ridiculous strawman to suppose that opposing feminism means supporting wife-beating.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,010



« Reply #138 on: June 30, 2014, 09:57:28 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.



It's obvious you are trying to justify your internet search history.  Just let it go. 
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from reporting
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Truest Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,865


Proverbs 31:13


« Reply #139 on: June 30, 2014, 10:00:51 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.



It's obvious you are trying to justify your internet search history.  Just let it go. 

ding ding ding
Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,663


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #140 on: June 30, 2014, 10:05:44 AM »

So I guess because of pais, Raylight thinks pederasty is ok as well.....

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,010



« Reply #141 on: June 30, 2014, 10:06:49 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.

I swear, first you translate pais as "young male lover".  It's "boy" or "youth".  I am sure that it was used as a euphemism at times (most naughty words in most languages tend to be) but I would prefer to just use the primary translation rather than trying to slander our Lord as some kind of sodomite.  Then you start throwing words into the blessed St. Paul's mouth.  No where does he say for men to submit to their wives.  You can love without submission.  Christ does not obey the Church.  He'll die for it, yes, but not submit.

One more distortion of scripture and I will restart the Inquisition.  You have been warned.  
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 10:07:59 AM by vamrat » Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #142 on: June 30, 2014, 10:12:36 AM »

To listen to gay advocates, you would think that the entire Bible has a massive gnostic homoerotic subtext to everything. Everyone in Scripture is secret gay marriage advocate, and all the Apostles and Jesus were plotting a massive gay uprising until Paul came along and dashed their hopes and dreams.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #143 on: June 30, 2014, 10:18:30 AM »

I swear, first you translate pais as "young male lover".  It's "boy" or "youth".  I am sure that it was used as a euphemism at times (most naughty words in most languages tend to be) but I would prefer to just use the primary translation rather than trying to slander our Lord as some kind of sodomite.  Then you start throwing words into the blessed St. Paul's mouth.  No where does he say for men to submit to their wives.  You can love without submission.  Christ does not obey the Church.  He'll die for it, yes, but not submit.

One more distortion of scripture and I will restart the Inquisition.  You have been warned.  

1 Corinthians 7:
"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that."

It's specifically regarding intercourse, though. He places authority only on the man in all other situations. Just throwing that out there for completeness' sake.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,010



« Reply #144 on: June 30, 2014, 10:56:05 AM »

I swear, first you translate pais as "young male lover".  It's "boy" or "youth".  I am sure that it was used as a euphemism at times (most naughty words in most languages tend to be) but I would prefer to just use the primary translation rather than trying to slander our Lord as some kind of sodomite.  Then you start throwing words into the blessed St. Paul's mouth.  No where does he say for men to submit to their wives (except when he is withholding whoopie from her...which one would suspect never happens unless he is some kind of toolbag or closet homo).  You can love without submission.  Christ does not obey the Church.  He'll die for it, yes, but not submit.

One more distortion of scripture and I will restart the Inquisition.  You have been warned.  

1 Corinthians 7:
"It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6 But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. 7 For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that."

It's specifically regarding intercourse, though. He places authority only on the man in all other situations. Just throwing that out there for completeness' sake.

Thanks.  Has been corrected.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #145 on: June 30, 2014, 11:13:39 AM »

We should first note that "young gay lover" is just a possible definition of the word "Pais" besides "Servant" or "children". We cannot simply make the assumption that the use of the word "pais" everywhere in Sacred Scriptures as being "young gay lover" especially when the word itself have multiple definitions.

And yet that's the one you jumped for. 

Quote
Hence, we must utilize the definition that is most suitable to the context of the verse. The two verses that refers to Jesus as "pais" simply translates as "child" because it is reference of Jesus being the Son of God, who is the Father. This natural as the Son is the child of the Father and the main context of the two verses is that they are praying to God. This would render the "Young gay lover" usage in this context as ridiculous and absurd, hence we know it cannot be the case and it must be either "servant" or "child" which both have a better fit. Some translations render "Pais" in the two verses as "Servant", the KJV renders it as "child".

OK...

Quote
In the context of the Centurion, while it may be argued that it could simply be his servant which in such an era, is simply a slave. Why would a Centurion who could easily find replacements request Jesus to heal his "Pais"? It would be more logical if that person is someone whom he love hence the appropriate attribution of the person the Centurion requested for Jesus to heal to be his lover given that the term, "young gay lover" is a possible meaning of "Pais". Despite this, it shouldn't be used as grounds to accept homosexuality, rather it should be used to accept the fact that Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation.

So every time a man has "love" for another man, it's because they have sex.  Well, I would have you know that I was never molested by my father. 

Aren't you the fellow agonising in another thread about being coerced into buying a Protestant study Bible?  Under such circumstances, you are in no place to attempt theology.   
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #146 on: June 30, 2014, 11:14:45 AM »

Quote
Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.
Thou shalt not eat human flesh....oh wait.....

PP

 Wink
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #147 on: June 30, 2014, 11:17:07 AM »

Quote
I'm not dismissing the testimony of the NT.

Oh yes you are. You're doing all you can to ignore, dismiss, or downplay what the book of Romans has to say on the matter.

I already said my opinion on Romans 1. Go check it out.

Folks, I'm going to wait for Kelly to say why she thinks I want homosexuality to be alright. I'm really looking forward to know what she thinks the reason is.

I don't want to convince anyone to believe what I and many Christians already believe regarding the Bible and homosexuality. However, I had to say what I believe so other people see that there are two opinions on the issue, not just one.

Peace.



It's obvious you are trying to justify your internet search history.  Just let it go. 

ding ding ding

Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,997



« Reply #148 on: June 30, 2014, 11:18:06 AM »


However, we must be clear that homosexuals are still human beings and remember that they still have sexual urges just as we do but simply towards members of the same gender. Hence, we must be careful to not support laws or initiatives that segregate or breach their rights as human beings or "second class" simply because of their sexual inclinations.

For the purposes of having rights and protections equal to those enjoyed by married folks, I do not mind legalizing homosexual unions. They could be called several names other than marriage: larriage for lesbians, harriage or garriage for gay men, quarriage for those who are questioning, tarriage for the transexual, etc... There was no reason to insist on a word that means something very specific to most of us--a union of a man and a woman. The point was not about equal rights, the point was and is about gay folks demanding approval and even kudos not for their orientation but for their homsexual activities. I do not think that legalizing homosexual activities is such a great step in our evolution as human beings; this opens up the door to decriminalizing all other sexual orientations and their respective sexual activities. In the West, we have done a good job of factoring out adultery out of the civil and criminal laws. Now that that we have factored out homosexual activities, why not do the same with polygamy, bestiality, pedophilia? I do think that folks could use the same sort of reasoning that "liberated" adultery and homosexual sex from legal consequences.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 11:19:19 AM by Carl Kraeff (Second Chance) » Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #149 on: June 30, 2014, 11:18:22 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.

I swear, first you translate pais as "young male lover".  It's "boy" or "youth".  I am sure that it was used as a euphemism at times (most naughty words in most languages tend to be) but I would prefer to just use the primary translation rather than trying to slander our Lord as some kind of sodomite.  Then you start throwing words into the blessed St. Paul's mouth.  No where does he say for men to submit to their wives.  You can love without submission.  Christ does not obey the Church.  He'll die for it, yes, but not submit.

One more distortion of scripture and I will restart the Inquisition.  You have been warned.  

Now, if you do theology, I don't mind so much.  Smiley
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #150 on: June 30, 2014, 11:31:44 AM »

We should first note that "young gay lover" is just a possible definition of the word "Pais" besides "Servant" or "children". We cannot simply make the assumption that the use of the word "pais" everywhere in Sacred Scriptures as being "young gay lover" especially when the word itself have multiple definitions.

And yet that's the one you jumped for. 

Quote
Hence, we must utilize the definition that is most suitable to the context of the verse. The two verses that refers to Jesus as "pais" simply translates as "child" because it is reference of Jesus being the Son of God, who is the Father. This natural as the Son is the child of the Father and the main context of the two verses is that they are praying to God. This would render the "Young gay lover" usage in this context as ridiculous and absurd, hence we know it cannot be the case and it must be either "servant" or "child" which both have a better fit. Some translations render "Pais" in the two verses as "Servant", the KJV renders it as "child".

OK...

Quote
In the context of the Centurion, while it may be argued that it could simply be his servant which in such an era, is simply a slave. Why would a Centurion who could easily find replacements request Jesus to heal his "Pais"? It would be more logical if that person is someone whom he love hence the appropriate attribution of the person the Centurion requested for Jesus to heal to be his lover given that the term, "young gay lover" is a possible meaning of "Pais". Despite this, it shouldn't be used as grounds to accept homosexuality, rather it should be used to accept the fact that Jesus loves all people regardless of sexual orientation.

So every time a man has "love" for another man, it's because they have sex.  Well, I would have you know that I was never molested by my father. 

Aren't you the fellow agonising in another thread about being coerced into buying a Protestant study Bible?  Under such circumstances, you are in no place to attempt theology.   

Yes, that's me.

Please understand that I'm not trying to attempt theology but I feel that homosexuality is an issue that we must address. If we don't, there would be those that would seek to take advantage of 'obscure' passages and verses of Sacred Scriptures for their own gain. Just as Luther and the Reformers had done so, we must not allow those that advocate homosexual unions to use our own Scriptures against us. This is why we need to clear some misunderstandings up and make sure that they are in line with Patristical Thought. I acknowledge that the Church Fathers unanimously disapprove of homosexuality. I do too, I just do not advocate for their discrimination and the passing of laws that breach their rights as human beings. I understand that Sacred Scripture is very clear on homosexuality be it gay or lesbian. However, my view on Jesus healing the Centurion's "Pais" is not one that shows that Jesus is cool with homosexuality, it shows that Jesus would love each one of us regardless of our Sins. We can agree on this point I think, remember, He died for our sake, so that we may be free of our disease of Sin that includes dying for each and every single one of us regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

I never said that when there is "love" between two men, there is "Sex", it is simply what the definition of "pais" is and the context of the situation that leads to my conclusion that is the person that is requested to be healed by Jesus is the "Young gay lover" of the Centurion. The Centurion would also done that out of this form of love which he and the person shared. It shouldn't be looked as I stressed out again as an excuse to accept gay marriage, Jesus never blessed their union, he simply wanted to heal the "pais" of the Centurion which would save his life.

Again, I stress out that "pais" could mean "Young gay lover" which is simply a definition of the other possible definition of the term. This is why while I did focus on this definition I said, "Can actually mean", I didn't say that it is the sole definition of the term. Also, I do not affirm or condone homosexual unions. I simply respect them as human beings. All human beings are sinful after all due to the Sinful nature inherited from the Fall.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #151 on: June 30, 2014, 11:37:27 AM »

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.

It's a ridiculous strawman to suppose that opposing feminism means supporting wife-beating.


I would not say that I'm a feminist, but I affirm that women should be treated as equal to men. Since when did I said that anyways? I simply pointed to parts of Sacred Scriptures that affirm gender equality and nowhere did I ever mention anything about wife-beating. Just because one does not support feminism does not mean one would degrade or beat up women. While perhaps I may have made allusions to wife-beating in the last part of my point, I would say that I do not mean that an opposition of feminism is a supporter of wife-beating. Sacred Scriptures in nowhere affirms "Wife-Beating", yet it is definitely not feminist in nature.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 11:39:15 AM by sakura95 » Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
Gamliel
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Metropolis of San Francisco
Posts: 2,326



« Reply #152 on: June 30, 2014, 11:41:07 AM »

Anyway, my question still remains, if there is any verse in the Old Testament, specially the Torah, that say female-female sexual relations is an abomination and both should be put to death. please share it with us.
Many parts of the Torah begin with the phrase, "Speak to the sons of Israel"; therefore, here are the passages that apply only to men.  The women are exempt:  http://legacy.biblegateway.com/keyword/?version=NASB&search=speak+to+the+sons+of+israel&searchtype=phrase&language1=en&spanbegin=1&spanend=73&resultspp=100&displayas=long&sort=bookorder
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 11:45:35 AM by Gamliel » Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #153 on: June 30, 2014, 11:44:33 AM »

Please understand that I'm not trying to attempt theology but I feel that homosexuality is an issue that we must address. If we don't, there would be those that would seek to take advantage of 'obscure' passages and verses of Sacred Scriptures for their own gain. Just as Luther and the Reformers had done so, we must not allow those that advocate homosexual unions to use our own Scriptures against us. This is why we need to clear some misunderstandings up and make sure that they are in line with Patristical Thought.

Yes, clear up misunderstandings, not create them where they are not.  Addressing homosexuality does not require us to make up stuff about Scripture.

Quote
I acknowledge that the Church Fathers unanimously disapprove of homosexuality. I do too, I just do not advocate for their discrimination and the passing of laws that breach their rights as human beings. I understand that Sacred Scripture is very clear on homosexuality be it gay or lesbian.

OK.

Quote
However, my view on Jesus healing the Centurion's "Pais" is not one that shows that Jesus is cool with homosexuality, it shows that Jesus would love each one of us regardless of our Sins. We can agree on this point I think, remember, He died for our sake, so that we may be free of our disease of Sin that includes dying for each and every single one of us regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation.

But you are reading homosexuality and/or sin into the centurion's relationship with his servant.  Is that necessary, or just convenient?   

Quote
I never said that when there is "love" between two men, there is "Sex", it is simply what the definition of "pais" is and the context of the situation that leads to my conclusion that is the person that is requested to be healed by Jesus is the "Young gay lover" of the Centurion. The Centurion would also done that out of this form of love which he and the person shared. It shouldn't be looked as I stressed out again as an excuse to accept gay marriage, Jesus never blessed their union, he simply wanted to heal the "pais" of the Centurion which would save his life.

Again, I stress out that "pais" could mean "Young gay lover" which is simply a definition of the other possible definition of the term. This is why while I did focus on this definition I said, "Can actually mean", I didn't say that it is the sole definition of the term. Also, I do not affirm or condone homosexual unions. I simply respect them as human beings. All human beings are sinful after all due to the Sinful nature inherited from the Fall.

Sorry, buddy.  You seized on "one possible definition" as "simply what the definition of 'pais' is".  If you're going to play that fast and loose with Scripture, then read II Kings 2.23-25 and give thanks to God that he allows bears to be lesbians and even employs them, though they're active homosexuals, to eat the village children when they make fun of his friends. 
« Last Edit: June 30, 2014, 11:45:50 AM by Mor Ephrem » Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #154 on: June 30, 2014, 11:48:30 AM »

I would not say that I'm a feminist, but I affirm that women should be treated as equal to men. Since when did I said that anyways? I simply pointed to parts of Sacred Scriptures that affirm gender equality and nowhere did I ever mention anything about wife-beating. Just because one does not support feminism does not mean one would degrade or beat up women. While perhaps I may have made allusions to wife-beating in the last part of my point, I would say that I do not mean that an opposition of feminism is a supporter of wife-beating. Sacred Scriptures in nowhere affirms "Wife-Beating", yet it is definitely not feminist in nature.

Brother, if you believe that improvements in gender relations have been past in the past two hundred years, you're a feminist.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #155 on: June 30, 2014, 11:50:34 AM »

Given also that a man is equivalent to a woman as well, the Old Testament Laws may also take this equality into account and it would be understandable that lesbianism which is simply the sexual feelings between two females would be the same as a man having sexual feelings for another man. Given this, it logically coincides with the perspective that the anti homosexual laws in the Old Testament are also directed towards women given the equality. Unless a male is superior to a female, then the the rule does not apply to lesbianism but that would simply just be sexist wouldn't it?


Given that the idea of "sexism" (whatever that means) being wrong is a modern phenomenon, it really shouldn't enter our minds when considering the intended meaning of ancient texts.

This is perhaps true but there are always exceptions to the rule. The Old Testament have numerous examples of women being in authority and even in the Book of Judith, being the heroine(Judith) that saves the day. So it should be noted that the Sacred Scriptures are not being sexist at all. Even if the New Testament mentions that wives must submit to their husbands, the husband must also submit to the wife by loving her and treating her as his own flesh and surely no sane person would simply treat their own flesh with disregard and inflict pain on it.

I swear, first you translate pais as "young male lover".  It's "boy" or "youth".  I am sure that it was used as a euphemism at times (most naughty words in most languages tend to be) but I would prefer to just use the primary translation rather than trying to slander our Lord as some kind of sodomite.  Then you start throwing words into the blessed St. Paul's mouth.  No where does he say for men to submit to their wives.  You can love without submission.  Christ does not obey the Church.  He'll die for it, yes, but not submit.

One more distortion of scripture and I will restart the Inquisition.  You have been warned.  

Please, just because the "Pais" is a "young male lover" doesn't mean that just because Jesus healed him, He is a Sodomite. If anyone is sick and asked for my help, I would try to help that person to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter whether that person is a homosexual or not. My main point on that translation is simply to show that Jesus Loves us all despite our shortcomings and traits. I do not condone or advocate homosexuality through adopting this interpretation which is just only a possible interpretation of many out there. Maybe the Centurion is a compassionate guy at heart, maybe since "Pais" can mean "Child", it could simply be the Centurion worried about his son. The "Young male lover" is simply one of the possible definitions out there for "pais".

Christ also loves humanity to the point of willingly lowering himself to its level and dying and suffering for it. Jesus also loves His Church but the Church submits to Him but that doesn't mean that the Church is being "degraded", it is because the Church is a created entity, created and founded by God Himself which is why Christ does not submit to it because by nature, He is superior as the Creator, yet, He still loves the Church, guides it and would even willingly give His own life up for it.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue for homosexual unions or its acceptance, I'm only for the rights of not discriminating them simply because of a disorder they have to suffer from.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,663


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #156 on: June 30, 2014, 11:51:36 AM »

Just because Christ forgave a whore doesnt mean He enjoys Miley Cyrus' "music".

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #157 on: June 30, 2014, 11:53:08 AM »

Please, just because the "Pais" is a "young male lover" doesn't mean that just because Jesus healed him, He is a Sodomite. If anyone is sick and asked for my help, I would try to help that person to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter whether that person is a homosexual or not. My main point on that translation is simply to show that Jesus Loves us all despite our shortcomings and traits. I do not condone or advocate homosexuality through adopting this interpretation which is just only a possible interpretation of many out there. Maybe the Centurion is a compassionate guy at heart, maybe since "Pais" can mean "Child", it could simply be the Centurion worried about his son. The "Young male lover" is simply one of the possible definitions out there for "pais".

Christ also loves humanity to the point of willingly lowering himself to its level and dying and suffering for it. Jesus also loves His Church but the Church submits to Him but that doesn't mean that the Church is being "degraded", it is because the Church is a created entity, created and founded by God Himself which is why Christ does not submit to it because by nature, He is superior as the Creator, yet, He still loves the Church, guides it and would even willingly give His own life up for it.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue for homosexual unions or its acceptance, I'm only for the rights of not discriminating them simply because of a disorder they have to suffer from.

Do you really not see it?
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #158 on: June 30, 2014, 12:01:19 PM »

I would not say that I'm a feminist, but I affirm that women should be treated as equal to men. Since when did I said that anyways? I simply pointed to parts of Sacred Scriptures that affirm gender equality and nowhere did I ever mention anything about wife-beating. Just because one does not support feminism does not mean one would degrade or beat up women. While perhaps I may have made allusions to wife-beating in the last part of my point, I would say that I do not mean that an opposition of feminism is a supporter of wife-beating. Sacred Scriptures in nowhere affirms "Wife-Beating", yet it is definitely not feminist in nature.

Brother, if you believe that improvements in gender relations have been past in the past two hundred years, you're a feminist.

There is an improvement whether you like it or not. I would admit that prior to this, I'm not familiar with "feminism", it is something I didn't bother to look into since I didn't have an interest in the topic. If however, I by believing that there have been improvement in gender relations then I would actually say yes, women are granted rights that men wouldn't normally have such as "education" or "voting", so I suppose you can call me that but only in the sense that I advocate that men and women are equal and should have equal rights. I do not believe in either gender having more rights over the other. while technically, male and female are seen as equals, there is still room for improvement. We still hear plenty of degrading jokes about women "belonging in the kitchen" or "women not supposed to drive". I have seen a couple of these on the Internet with hardly negative comments about them and their nature. In this aspect, I say that we have to let go of that impression as a society and acknowledge that women are able to be of any profession not just confined in the kitchen.

Henceforth, I suppose I'm a feminist but only in terms of gender equality and the belief of men and women having equal rights. Nothing more, nothing less.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
DeniseDenise
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,693


Pre-heating the Oven!


« Reply #159 on: June 30, 2014, 12:04:08 PM »

Please, just because the "Pais" is a "young male lover" doesn't mean that just because Jesus healed him, He is a Sodomite. If anyone is sick and asked for my help, I would try to help that person to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter whether that person is a homosexual or not. My main point on that translation is simply to show that Jesus Loves us all despite our shortcomings and traits. I do not condone or advocate homosexuality through adopting this interpretation which is just only a possible interpretation of many out there. Maybe the Centurion is a compassionate guy at heart, maybe since "Pais" can mean "Child", it could simply be the Centurion worried about his son. The "Young male lover" is simply one of the possible definitions out there for "pais".

Christ also loves humanity to the point of willingly lowering himself to its level and dying and suffering for it. Jesus also loves His Church but the Church submits to Him but that doesn't mean that the Church is being "degraded", it is because the Church is a created entity, created and founded by God Himself which is why Christ does not submit to it because by nature, He is superior as the Creator, yet, He still loves the Church, guides it and would even willingly give His own life up for it.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue for homosexual unions or its acceptance, I'm only for the rights of not discriminating them simply because of a disorder they have to suffer from.

Do you really not see it?


fun with synonyms in translation.....

 laugh
Logged
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #160 on: June 30, 2014, 12:05:48 PM »

Please, just because the "Pais" is a "young male lover" doesn't mean that just because Jesus healed him, He is a Sodomite. If anyone is sick and asked for my help, I would try to help that person to the best of my ability. It doesn't matter whether that person is a homosexual or not. My main point on that translation is simply to show that Jesus Loves us all despite our shortcomings and traits. I do not condone or advocate homosexuality through adopting this interpretation which is just only a possible interpretation of many out there. Maybe the Centurion is a compassionate guy at heart, maybe since "Pais" can mean "Child", it could simply be the Centurion worried about his son. The "Young male lover" is simply one of the possible definitions out there for "pais".

Christ also loves humanity to the point of willingly lowering himself to its level and dying and suffering for it. Jesus also loves His Church but the Church submits to Him but that doesn't mean that the Church is being "degraded", it is because the Church is a created entity, created and founded by God Himself which is why Christ does not submit to it because by nature, He is superior as the Creator, yet, He still loves the Church, guides it and would even willingly give His own life up for it.

Please understand, I'm not trying to argue for homosexual unions or its acceptance, I'm only for the rights of not discriminating them simply because of a disorder they have to suffer from.

Do you really not see it?

Again, I do get your point, but I would acknowledge that I cannot say for certain that this is the correct definition and context for the use of the word "pais" as I have mentioned and explained in that statement I was making. I would admit that there is a significant possibility of me being wrong on this but if I'm right, it cannot be seen as Jesus being totally fine with homosexual unions and should be interpreted as Jesus loving and reaching out to each and every one of us, despite our sinful nature. Homosexuality is after all, the product of the Fall.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #161 on: June 30, 2014, 12:06:36 PM »

There is an improvement whether you like it or not. I would admit that prior to this, I'm not familiar with "feminism", it is something I didn't bother to look into since I didn't have an interest in the topic. If however, I by believing that there have been improvement in gender relations then I would actually say yes, women are granted rights that men wouldn't normally have such as "education" or "voting", so I suppose you can call me that but only in the sense that I advocate that men and women are equal and should have equal rights. I do not believe in either gender having more rights over the other. while technically, male and female are seen as equals, there is still room for improvement. We still hear plenty of degrading jokes about women "belonging in the kitchen" or "women not supposed to drive". I have seen a couple of these on the Internet with hardly negative comments about them and their nature. In this aspect, I say that we have to let go of that impression as a society and acknowledge that women are able to be of any profession not just confined in the kitchen.

Henceforth, I suppose I'm a feminist but only in terms of gender equality and the belief of men and women having equal rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you really believe that nearly 1800 years of Christians were wrong about the proper relations between the genders, and a pack of anti-Christian revolutionaries were needed to enlighten the Church about the matter, then I'm really not sure what to say to you. But I suppose that's pretty much everyone these days.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #162 on: June 30, 2014, 12:08:18 PM »

Just because Christ forgave a whore doesnt mean He enjoys Miley Cyrus' "music".

PP

Exactly and just because Jesus healed a "Young male Lover" doesn't make him a supporter of homosexuality. As I make this statement, I acknowledge that I could be wrong about the whole "Pais" thing since there are other different definitions of the term.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #163 on: June 30, 2014, 12:11:02 PM »

Again, I do get your point, but I would acknowledge that I cannot say for certain that this is the correct definition and context for the use of the word "pais" as I have mentioned and explained in that statement I was making. I would admit that there is a significant possibility of me being wrong on this but if I'm right, it cannot be seen as Jesus being totally fine with homosexual unions and should be interpreted as Jesus loving and reaching out to each and every one of us, despite our sinful nature. Homosexuality is after all, the product of the Fall.

Surely you can highlight this message without bastardising Scripture.  There are plenty of great passages from which to pick.  The Reformation Study Bible just might prove helpful in your search.  
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #164 on: June 30, 2014, 12:20:38 PM »

Before everyone continues to murder sakura, I think what he is trying to say is that even though there is no proof that the centurion's "pais" was, in fact, a homosexual, and even if he was, Christ demonstrated His love toward him. I see no controversy in that position.
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #165 on: June 30, 2014, 12:25:54 PM »

Before everyone continues to murder sakura, I think what he is trying to say is that even though there is no proof that the centurion's "pais" was, in fact, a homosexual, and even if he was, Christ demonstrated His love toward him. I see no controversy in that position.

I see no controversy in that.  I see controversy in intentionally misrepresenting Scripture to make a point that can be gleaned from an authentic representation of Scripture.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
DeniseDenise
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Posts: 3,693


Pre-heating the Oven!


« Reply #166 on: June 30, 2014, 12:33:34 PM »

Indeed. There are enough examples of the mercy shown to sinful people, that forcing a particular translation of a word, in order to show one more....is un-needed and thus one of those cases where people started that interpretation because it supports a cause.

Logged
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #167 on: June 30, 2014, 12:35:10 PM »

There is an improvement whether you like it or not. I would admit that prior to this, I'm not familiar with "feminism", it is something I didn't bother to look into since I didn't have an interest in the topic. If however, I by believing that there have been improvement in gender relations then I would actually say yes, women are granted rights that men wouldn't normally have such as "education" or "voting", so I suppose you can call me that but only in the sense that I advocate that men and women are equal and should have equal rights. I do not believe in either gender having more rights over the other. while technically, male and female are seen as equals, there is still room for improvement. We still hear plenty of degrading jokes about women "belonging in the kitchen" or "women not supposed to drive". I have seen a couple of these on the Internet with hardly negative comments about them and their nature. In this aspect, I say that we have to let go of that impression as a society and acknowledge that women are able to be of any profession not just confined in the kitchen.

Henceforth, I suppose I'm a feminist but only in terms of gender equality and the belief of men and women having equal rights. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you really believe that nearly 1800 years of Christians were wrong about the proper relations between the genders, and a pack of anti-Christian revolutionaries were needed to enlighten the Church about the matter, then I'm really not sure what to say to you. But I suppose that's pretty much everyone these days.

I would argue that Christianity is actually responsible for improved gender relations. Many of our Saints are women, even our greatest Saint is a woman. Also women have played a significant role in Christianity's survival and growth since Apostolic Times. It is through the establishment of the monastic tradition in Christianity that women are able to gain access to education and literacy. Despite these achievements though, it should be noted that there are Church Fathers who have a negative view of women though this could simply stem from the fact that Eve was the one who ate from the Tree in the Garden of Eden, hence the negative reception.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Warned
Hoplitarches
*****
Online Online

Posts: 14,681



WWW
« Reply #168 on: June 30, 2014, 12:37:18 PM »

Don't forget, girls have cooties.
Logged
TheTrisagion
Armed Feline rider of Flaming Unicorns
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 9,930



« Reply #169 on: June 30, 2014, 12:38:04 PM »

Don't forget, girls have cooties.
+1
Logged

Why can't you just take your spiritual edification like a man? 
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #170 on: June 30, 2014, 12:39:51 PM »

Again, I do get your point, but I would acknowledge that I cannot say for certain that this is the correct definition and context for the use of the word "pais" as I have mentioned and explained in that statement I was making. I would admit that there is a significant possibility of me being wrong on this but if I'm right, it cannot be seen as Jesus being totally fine with homosexual unions and should be interpreted as Jesus loving and reaching out to each and every one of us, despite our sinful nature. Homosexuality is after all, the product of the Fall.

Surely you can highlight this message without bastardising Scripture.  There are plenty of great passages from which to pick.  The Reformation Study Bible just might prove helpful in your search.  

Yes there are plenty of others. But I acknowledge that I can be wrong about my interpretation of that passage in Sacred Scripture. However, if I'm right, we definitely cannot immediately rush to the conclusion of homosexuality being accepted by Jesus.

I would have to close my eyes at some points in the Reformation Study Bible since it is heretical at parts.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #171 on: June 30, 2014, 12:45:18 PM »

Before everyone continues to murder sakura, I think what he is trying to say is that even though there is no proof that the centurion's "pais" was, in fact, a homosexual, and even if he was, Christ demonstrated His love toward him. I see no controversy in that position.

I see no controversy in that.  I see controversy in intentionally misrepresenting Scripture to make a point that can be gleaned from an authentic representation of Scripture.

If I have created the impression that I'm misrepresenting Scripture or is doing so then I apologize for my mistake. It is not my intention to alter the Truth contained in Scripture after all. We can all agree that Scripture is mysterious and deep. It is not some shallow piece of literature one can just read through and understand just as the Protestants do. Given this, there would be many confusing things and aspects of Scripture which we are unsure of. I would admit that I myself is unsure of the use of the word "Pais" but given the multiple definitions of it including one being "Young male lover", I would stress that it could simply be reference of the person being the Centurion's own child given that this is also a definition of "Pais". End of the day though, I can't be too sure but what I can be certain of is that if "Pais" do mean "Young Male Lover" in that context, it does not mean Jesus being totally cool with homosexuality.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #172 on: June 30, 2014, 12:53:28 PM »

I would argue that Christianity is actually responsible for improved gender relations. Many of our Saints are women, even our greatest Saint is a woman. Also women have played a significant role in Christianity's survival and growth since Apostolic Times. It is through the establishment of the monastic tradition in Christianity that women are able to gain access to education and literacy. Despite these achievements though, it should be noted that there are Church Fathers who have a negative view of women though this could simply stem from the fact that Eve was the one who ate from the Tree in the Garden of Eden, hence the negative reception.

I completely agree with you here. Women were often treated very poorly in pagan cultures (with the notable exception of certain Germanic tribes, according to Tacitus), and they still often are in Islam. Christianity got it right. Where we differ is that you think the logical conclusion of this noble Christian idea is equality, which is an idea which came out of non-Christian and frequently anti-Christian philosophy not more than 250 years ago, while I am in favour of respecting and loving women as women, as distinct and separate from men, with a different set of rights and duties. I firmly believe in precisely what St Paul says about gender relations (though I will grant that it is not always shameful for a woman to speak in church  Wink ).
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
sakura95
Love Live School Idol Festival noob :(
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox(Though I want to be Coptic)
Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate Archdiocese of Thyaeira and Great Britain
Posts: 783


예쁜 나의 예쁜 나이 25살 ◟(。´௰`)◞३*¨♪


« Reply #173 on: June 30, 2014, 01:13:09 PM »

I would argue that Christianity is actually responsible for improved gender relations. Many of our Saints are women, even our greatest Saint is a woman. Also women have played a significant role in Christianity's survival and growth since Apostolic Times. It is through the establishment of the monastic tradition in Christianity that women are able to gain access to education and literacy. Despite these achievements though, it should be noted that there are Church Fathers who have a negative view of women though this could simply stem from the fact that Eve was the one who ate from the Tree in the Garden of Eden, hence the negative reception.

I completely agree with you here. Women were often treated very poorly in pagan cultures (with the notable exception of certain Germanic tribes, according to Tacitus), and they still often are in Islam. Christianity got it right. Where we differ is that you think the logical conclusion of this noble Christian idea is equality, which is an idea which came out of non-Christian and frequently anti-Christian philosophy not more than 250 years ago, while I am in favour of respecting and loving women as women, as distinct and separate from men, with a different set of rights and duties. I firmly believe in precisely what St Paul says about gender relations (though I will grant that it is not always shameful for a woman to speak in church  Wink ).

While perhaps this is true, we must admit that women deserve education and the right to vote as well. Generally, in the secular sense, equal rights as men. In the religious sense such as Christianity, their roles and rights are equal but their duties are different. We can indeed accept what St Paul have to say on gender relations but in church.
Logged

Will be off for Christmas break on the 20th-27th

Merry Christmas and God bless (◕‿◕✿)
vamrat
Vamratoraptor
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Serbian Orthodox
Jurisdiction: New Gracanica
Posts: 8,010



« Reply #174 on: June 30, 2014, 01:35:52 PM »

Don't forget, girls have cooties.

I will never forget the victims of the cootiecaust.  Some of my best friends have fallen victim to the Waffen-NagNag and their honey-do gas chambers.
Logged

Das ist des Jägers Ehrenschild, daß er beschützt und hegt sein Wild, weidmännisch jagt, wie sich’s gehört, den Schöpfer im Geschöpfe ehrt.
The Fool
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Archdiocese of the British Isles and Ireland
Posts: 216



« Reply #175 on: June 30, 2014, 01:38:17 PM »

While perhaps this is true, we must admit that women deserve education and the right to vote as well. Generally, in the secular sense, equal rights as men. In the religious sense such as Christianity, their roles and rights are equal but their duties are different. We can indeed accept what St Paul have to say on gender relations but in church.

I don't think it's right to separate church and the world outside church like that, brother. While I agree that there is a certain separation in the sense that not every sin should be illegal (what good does it do to punish drug addicts? and how do you ban pride?  Grin), we are Christians everywhere, not just in church. Why would we encourage secular law to discourage Christian behaviour, as it does now in so many ways, but particularly as regards gender relations? If we're to go with St Paul and say women should have no authority over men, why should this end at the door of the church or the Christian home?

Further, it's entirely possible to make purely secular and pragmatic arguments against equality. This business of women voting, having careers instead of children, "sexual liberty", and so on, goes inseparably hand in hand with abortion, divorce, the raising of children without their fathers, sexual promiscuity, and all manner of other social ills which cause strife and suffering between the genders. Take note that all of these things come from one and the same movement, and that that movement itself proudly trumpets that they are inseparable.
Logged

"When I hear the words 'Interfaith Dialogue', I reach for my revolver."
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,663


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #176 on: June 30, 2014, 02:18:42 PM »

Don't forget, girls have cooties.

I will never forget the victims of the cootiecaust.  Some of my best friends have fallen victim to the Waffen-NagNag and their honey-do gas chambers.
Circle-circle-dot-dot, fools. Im safe.

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Porter ODoran
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Catechumen
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Archdiocese
Posts: 2,290


Erst Amish Appalachian


WWW
« Reply #177 on: June 30, 2014, 10:30:46 PM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.
Logged

In love did God create the world; in love does he guide it ...; in love is he going wondrously to transform it. --Abba Isaac

Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity. --Climacus
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #178 on: June 30, 2014, 10:39:13 PM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.

You are in OC.net, duuuuh.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #179 on: June 30, 2014, 11:09:03 PM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.

You are in OC.net, duuuuh.

And also with you.
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #180 on: June 30, 2014, 11:27:14 PM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.

You are in OC.net, duuuuh.

And also with you.

I don't know what you really mean by that, but I can't imagine it to be something nice, because that is who you are Mor, never say nice things to or about people.
Logged
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #181 on: June 30, 2014, 11:34:58 PM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.

You are in OC.net, duuuuh.

And also with you.

I don't know what you really mean by that, but I can't imagine it to be something nice, because that is who you are Mor, never say nice things to or about people.

You said that Porter was on OCNet.  All I said was that you were too. 
Logged

The Mor has spoken. Let his word endure unto the ages of ages.

Please, James, tell us more about women!
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #182 on: July 01, 2014, 05:01:50 AM »

This thread started crazy and got crazier, and then crazier.

You are in OC.net, duuuuh.

And also with you.

I don't know what you really mean by that, but I can't imagine it to be something nice, because that is who you are Mor, never say nice things to or about people.

You said that Porter was on OCNet.  All I said was that you were too. 

My apologies.
Logged
Charles Martel
Traditional Roman Catholic
Warned
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Roman Catholic
Jurisdiction: New york
Posts: 3,413


« Reply #183 on: July 01, 2014, 05:59:54 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.



Where does it say in the bible "if it's not in the bible, don't believe it"?

It doesn't, so where's your Sola Scriptura logic now?

You sound like the typical heretical biblethumper using or not using scripture for you own individual twisted agenda.

Yea, sure ray, God's defintely into lesbian sex because "it's not in the bibble!" Roll Eyes
Logged

Sancte Michael Archangele, defende nos in proelio, contra nequitiam et insidias diaboli esto praesidium.
primuspilus
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian Orthodox Archdiocese of North America - Western Rite Orthodox
Posts: 6,663


Inserting personal quote here.


WWW
« Reply #184 on: July 01, 2014, 10:12:33 AM »

Raylight, you are asking the OT to do something that it was not intended to do. Like the Church, the Jews did not look at the OT as an individual inerrant document. It was always interpreted through tradition. If you would like, you can go through the ancient Jewish midrashes and some of them do condemn lesbianism along with homosexuality in general. You will find that they did not view lesbianism as wrong as male homosexuality because it was their view that women could not engage in actual intercourse with one another as men can, but it was still considered a rebellion against God.

I'm not asking what the Jewish Tradition said, I'm asking what the Bible said. Tradition is not inspired, the Bible is.  There is no verse condemns lesbian sex in the OT, that is now very clear to me. So, the Old Testament never condemned Homosexuality like some Christians claim, but it condemned male-male sex in two cases, when one of them is married to a woman and go have sex with a man, and the second case is male gang-rape like in Sodom.

I understand that some people will never ever ever accept that, they just can't accept it. But the fact is fact, even if the whole world didn't accept it.

Peace.



Where does it say in the bible "if it's not in the bible, don't believe it"?

It doesn't, so where's your Sola Scriptura logic now?

You sound like the typical heretical biblethumper using or not using scripture for you own individual twisted agenda.

Yea, sure ray, God's defintely into lesbian sex because "it's not in the bibble!" Roll Eyes
The Bible also does not say you can't worship a planet. it says you can't worship other Gods, but nothing about planets. It also says not to be drunk by the fruit of the vine, but does not say beer, so therefore, grab some Old Rasputin and get tanked. Its ok! Its not in the Bible!

PP
Logged

"I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself Universal Bishop is the precursor of Antichrist"
Gregory the Great

"Never, never, never let anyone tell you that, in order to be Orthodox, you must also be eastern." St. John Maximovitch, The Wonderworker
Raylight
Moderated
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,815


« Reply #185 on: July 01, 2014, 10:21:59 AM »

Have a good life folks.

Logged
kelly
UNSUBSCRIBED from reporting
OC.net guru
*******
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Genuine Kellenic Truest Orthodox Traditionalist Church *of* America
Posts: 1,865


Proverbs 31:13


« Reply #186 on: July 01, 2014, 10:24:36 AM »

Have a good life folks.



Logged

kelly and I spend all our free time collecting pictures of Russian monarchs.  Its a thing we do.
Mor Ephrem
"Mor is right, you are wrong."
Section Moderator
Stratopedarches
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 18,698


"And you shall call his name Jesus..."


WWW
« Reply #187 on: July 01, 2014, 10:36:40 AM »